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

The defiance we need, and the oppression we've got.

It is my firm view that the most vital problem of American national security, the question upon which hinges our fortune in the war that came to our shores on September 11, in short, nothing less than the most pressing issue before the Republic, is whether or not we will comprehend the ineradicably Islamic character of the enemy.

Are we or are we not a people capable of embracing hard truth about the war that is made against us — the hard truth that the enemy finds his motivation, his inspiration, his justification, his rhetoric, even his strategy and tactics, in the authentic and primitive traditions of the religion of Muhammad? Are we or are we not a people possessed of the fortitude equal to this challenge? As the cliché goes, can we handle the truth?

It is an open question, I’m afraid; and I am convinced that it is one whose answer will tell for or against this Republic for generations for come.

It is in this context that we ought to read with alarm and indignation of the dismissal of Major Stephen Coughlin from the Pentagon. Coughlin worked as a counterterrorism analyst, and took an unsparing view of the Jihad. The document he authored concludes that a “working threat model” of the enemy must begin with “an unconstrained, undelegated, systematic, factual analysis of the threat doctrine that the enemy self-identifies as being driven by Islamic law.” The pulverizing fact is that our current model begins with an unthinking rejection of such analysis: it begins with a deliberate closing of the mind, enforced by the standard methods of intimidation and vilification. Coughlin, for instance, has been publicly castigated as a “Christian zealot with a pen.”

There have been varying official explanations for his removal, but as The Washington Times’ Bill Gertz reports, “officials supportive of Mr. Coughlin said the real reason is that critics . . . want him sidelined because they oppose his hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine.” One of these critics, an assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, is reported to have ties to a propaganda arm of the Jihad.

A number of eminent military men are willing to go on record in Coughlin’s defense. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney: “Steve Coughlin is the most knowledgeable person in the U.S. government on Islamic law. The secretary of defense should ensure that he stays at DOD.” Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Corps, "[Coughlin’s work] hit the mark in explaining how jihadists use the Koran to justify their actions.” U. S. Central Command analyst Neal Harper: “Ignoring Steve Coughlin's honest assessments and terminating his contract sets a dangerous and disturbing precedent.”

Imagine, if you can, men in the late 1940s arguing, or at least implying by their silence, that our security services should not take seriously the stated doctrines and historical development of Communism; that it is too controversial for analysts to treat Marxism as the ground of the aggression from the Soviet Union, and study it diligently in that light. This, in embryo, is the sorry state of affairs in America today. [Update: it was just brought to my attention that Diana West made this same argument, even more vividly, last week.]

Patriotic indignation should swell against this oppression. Under its influence, the public mind of the Republic may have no compass over the character, the origins, the antiquity, the variations and predecents, of the war being made against us. Friends, it is an oppression — a crippling and dangerous one. We invent new euphemisms to conceal the facts virtually every day; we invent them because, as Chesterton aptly put it, short words startle us while long words sooth us. Sen. John McCain, for instance, is said to be a hawk on the war on terror. For him the enemy is a comically redundant string of emotional descriptors: “radical Islamic extremism.” My personal favorite is the talent of our sheepish writers for piling on suffixes. The enemy becomes “Islamicism”; whatever is necessary to rhetorically distance him from the Islamic religion as such. The purpose of these lengthy phrases is not to properly identify and understand the enemy; it is to sooth the distressed conscience of Liberalism.

Now let us consider another question: What is the traditional American rejoinder to oppression? How have our fathers generally replied to the specter of a rising tyranny? How have they answered a proposed oppression of their self-government, their very inheritance as Americans and freemen?

With defiance.

It is defiance that we desperately need, my friends and countrymen. Do not be cowed by this oppression. Do not fear the degrading whims of political correctness. Do not flinch at its honorless fashions and shameful bullying. Think of your heroes, the patriots who sacrificed to give us what we have here on these shores. Think of Reagan’s dogged defiance of any intellectual accommodation with Communism. Think of the boldness and courage of the men and women who resisted segregation. Think of Burke’s defiance of the French Revolution, Churchill’s of Fascism, both of whom were cast into the wilderness for their “warmongering,” only to be rehabilitated when their prescience was realized.

One obvious practice step to take is this: We are in the midst of a rather wild and wooly primary season. Rarely has there ever been such an opportunity as this to bring immediate and perceptible pressure to bear on politicians. These men and women would be our commander in chief in a war which has already included the most grievous blow ever struck against us by a foreign enemy. Do not let this moment pass. Press the candidates with these questions. Make them squirm. Embarrass them (gently) for their foolish euphemisms. Demonstrate that we will have no truck with such rhetorical games. Make obvious our impatience with that cupidity, that inertia, and that cravenness which would deprive us of our capacity for self-government on the war into which we have been flung.

We must defy the oppression that would drive good men like Major Coughlin from places of influence. We must stand with fortitude as our fathers once did, and earn the right to be called American patriots.

Comments (80)

Are we or are we not a people capable of embracing hard truth about the war that is made against us — the hard truth that the enemy finds his motivation, his inspiration, his justification, his rhetoric, even his strategy and tactics, in the authentic and primitive traditions of the religion of Muhammad?


Let's see -- the Muslim "holy" book demands that Muslims "slay the pagans" wherever they find them (Sura 9:5), "fight" those who don't accept the "religion of truth" (Sura 9:29), denounce Christians who confess that "The Messiah is the son of Allah," wish that "Allah's curse be upon them" or "may Allah destroy them" (Sura 9:30). Then there's the fact that those who confess that "Allah is Christ the son of Mary" are "in blasphemy" (Sura 5:17), that Muslims should "take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other" (Sura 5:51) and that "they do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity" (Sura 5:73) for the "Fire will be his abode" (Sura 5:72). (Have I missed anything?)

At any rate, the Islam that folks speak of these days is not authentic Islam but a revisionist kind most like promoted by ACLU-type individuals and/or the ACLU itself!

So why do some conservatives, while complaining about political correctness, gleefully appropriate the very worst aspect of PCness - the language of victimization? Because that's all I see here. "We are victims, or potential victims, and so we must defy." It's just such a strange sentiment coming from an American that lives in the greatest and most powerful empire the world has every seen.

Whatever, Mike. As I said, current elite opinion on Islam "begins with a deliberate closing of the mind, enforced by the standard methods of intimidation and vilification." The proper response to this oppression of the mind is defiance.

Care to actually address the substance of the post?

It is "PCness" that has led to the dire state we find ourselves as far as national security is concerned wherein Islam is not seen for what it actually is but, instead, through blinders that refuse to see the doctrine in its true form.

It would seem that folks like Mike would have us believe that the victims of 9/11 were not the American innocents who lost their lives but, quite ironically, the Muslim terrorists themselves!

Okay, let's stipulate that ordinary, garden variety, Islam is Evil. Every Muslim is, therefore, the Enemy. We have a billion enemies, then, several million of them living amongst us, and the rest spread out literally around the globe.

What's your plan?

Okay, let's stipulate that ordinary, garden variety, Islam is Evil. Every Muslim is, therefore, the Enemy.


Rodak,
I'll answer your question (as well as clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding on your part) with one of my own -- was the young Calormene, Emeth, in The Last Battle evil?

The Last Battle

Aristocles--

What's that? A movie?

In any case, I wasn't asking for your plan, but for Paul's. I apologize for the confusion.

Aristocles--
What's that? A movie?

It was the last book of C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia.


In any case, I wasn't asking for your plan, but for Paul's. I apologize for the confusion.

Apologies.

'Because that's all I see here. "We are victims, or potential victims, and so we must defy."'

Um, here we're talking about people who are attacking, and have attacked, the United States through terrorism against American civilians. It would make sense to think of ourselves as "potential victims" of a terrorism.

"It's just such a strange sentiment coming from an American that lives in the greatest and most powerful empire the world has every seen."

What's the use of living in the strongest empire in history if any big-city dweller can reasonably fear that he, or a friend of his, will be killed by foreign terrorists tomorrow?

Histor

Aristocles--
Well, now that we've exposed my ignorance of The Chronicles of Narnia (although I just reread the Space Trilogy, why don't you go ahead and make your points, anyway, but without reference to that particular analogy. It's not that I have no interest in your opinion.

"Are we or are we not a people capable of embracing hard truth about the war that is made against us"

I would be the first one if I were convinced this "hard truth" actually were true.

Obviously, there are violent Muslims who justify their actions from the Koran. But there are also other Muslims, reading the same verses, who come to vastly different conclusions. Mind you, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States picked a side of this interpretive division of Islam, strengthening and encouraging the "violent" strains.

But I cannot say that all Islam itself is violent, or that all Muslims are the enemy against the United.

I could quite easily pull Bible verses (just as Aristocles did above with the Koran) to prove to a non-Christian outsider that Judeo-Christianity is a violent threat against other civilizations. Based upon its history - the Crusades, Inquisition, modern pograms, etc... - one would be justified to dismiss Christianity if one used the same casual dismissal of a complex religion as presented here.

Is Islam a "religion of peace"? Well, strains of it are more peaceful than others and strains are very violent, whereas the very same thing can be said of Christianity.

I don't think this is "PC", but rather an appreciation that Islam deserves to be viewed with the same sort of complexity as Christianity.

If you do believe that Islam is "the enemy", I would caution you to understand it, and know that not all Muslims think alike.

"Is Islam a "religion of peace"? Well, strains of it are more peaceful than others and strains are very violent, whereas the very same thing can be said of Christianity."


Go ahead, list the atrocities; stoning of adulterers, hangings of homosexuals, "honor killings", severing the hands of thieves, beheadings of "apostates", et al., these are all done by states claiming a fidelity to the New Testament, right?

This line of argument is absurd and supports Paul's contention that far too many in the West have lost the will to discern a threat, much less resist one.

This line of argument is absurd and supports Paul's contention that far too many in the West have lost the will to discern a threat, much less resist one.

That is because discernment - which is to say thinking - is a form of discrimination, discrimination violates the equality principle, and the equality principle can never be violated unless one is stamping out the oppressor-untermensch (who isn't fully human anyway).

Go ahead, list the atrocities; stoning of adulterers, hangings of homosexuals, "honor killings", severing the hands of thieves, beheadings of "apostates", et al., these are all done by states claiming a fidelity to the New Testament, right?

Name a modern state that claims fidelity to the New Testament, much less the Old Testament. Because history is replete with examples of atrocities done by Christian nations, genocide, lynching, burning at the stake, and most other methods of official and unofficial terror.

"Name a modern state that claims fidelity to the New Testament, much less the Old Testament."

I can't. Ufortunately, I can name plenty of Islamic states that cite their faith's sacred texts as the sanction for their unspeakable violence.

"...history is replete with examples of atrocities done by Christian nations,..."

So? Does that support or subvert the argument that 21st Centruy Islam poses the same threat as modern-day Christianity?

As there are so many varieties of Christians, so there are as many Islamists-publically and personally.

The Truth will set them free as He has us.

We need to converse with them, befriend them, and clarify the Truth. First, by living the Truth by good example. This last point is our downfall, and needs to be corrected. I love to copy someone I trust, and lives what they believe. A good wholesome person does not have to even say a word.

This truth we need to swollow immediately: They do not like us because we are a virtueless mess. Unless our own culture changes, there will be problems with them.

Unless we change-they will not!

Guess What? It starts here at home-today. Hardly anyone realizes this very simple point.

Ah, Rose is holding up a mirror into the depths of which very few want to look.

"Go ahead, list the atrocities; stoning of adulterers, hangings of homosexuals, "honor killings", severing the hands of thieves, beheadings of "apostates", et al., these are all done by states claiming a fidelity to the New Testament, right?"

Hmmm....I can think of many "Christian" states that did those things between 1000-1700 AD.

Oh! Did you mean "modern Christan" state? Fortunately, I can't. But I can think of many Christian groups that if they had a theocracy or their own army, they would very much do those with glee.

Fortunately, the West which you decry, has developed the tradition of separation of church and state where the fanatics are defanged of theocratic power.

"Unless our own culture changes, there will be problems with them."

Rose, we will perish if we don't recover our faith. Islam can be viewed either as a chastisement, or as the artificial filling for our culture's spiritual vacuum. A re-Christianized West would earn the respect (not the affection) of much of Islam, however, the zeal of the Jihadists would likely increase when faced with a vibrant version of their ancient foe.

We should recover and ardently practice our faith. The Moslem world needs to develop a more tempered form of Islam.

Fortunately, I can't. But I can think of many Christian groups that if they had a theocracy or their own army, they would very much do those with glee.

It must be nice having so much fun invoking the hypothetical.

Too bad 9/11 was but a fantasy and those innocent men, women and children who lost their lives were merely play stuff.

"But I can think of many Christian groups that if they had a theocracy or their own army, they would very much do those with glee."

Are you saying it's because they respect the rule of law enough that all these blood thirsty Christians are refraining from suicide bombings and video-taped beheadings? Hmmm. Well at least alert us to the danger. Name them. And take all the time you need.

Fine, the KKK or how about www.godhatesfags.com.

I would call them Christian. I would call them despicable. The KKK kills and tortures people whereas the hardcore Christian fundamentalist only wants to.

Give either group an army or a state of their own and see what happens.

Too bad 9/11 was but a stark reminder of what zealots seeking to purge the world of infidels can destroy when given the opportunity.

There. I fixed it for you, Aristocles.

blood thirsty Christians are refraining from suicide bombings

Doesn't it kind of go without saying that if a people possesses cruise missiles and high altitude bombers, that people doesn't need to resort to suicide bombings to kill the people it wants to kill?

So, the wild-eyed Christian zealots who "wish they had an army" don't resort to suicide bombings because they consider that our own army is doing their job for them? So _that's_ why they aren't engaging in suicide bombings? That's crazy.

Too bad 9/11 was but a stark reminder of what zealots seeking to purge the world of infidels can destroy when given the opportunity.

There. I fixed it for you, Aristocles.


Oh, I'm sorry -- all this time I thought that one of the biggest threats our nation faces were Muslim terrorists.

I had no idea whatsoever that there were un-named Christian radicals scurrying about, committing similar acts against the American people!

It appears I must have missed the news concerning Christian fundamentalists actually having hijacked a number of planes and crashing them into buildings right in the heart of heavily populated areas ensuring the deaths of several innocent people.

Aside from the actions of the IRA, I concede there is a tactical difference between Christian violence and the Muslim counterpart.

However, that is all a red herring to the point I was trying to make above.

Christian zealotry and violence exists. Fortunately, the less violent form of Christianity currently has the superior numerical majority. But it was not always the case.

For Islam, I believe such a similar dichotomy exists. However, the numerical balance is currently far more skewed.

Hence, I cannot dismiss all Islam for the actions of the violent perpetrators, just as I would not want all Christendom to take the blame for its ugly and sometimes violent side.

@Royale;
"Fine, the KKK or how about www.godhatesfags.com."

They are routinely and roundly condemned for being anti-Christian by Christians. Does such a widespread response greet jihadists in the Islamic world? If not,why do you think that is? Odd, that you would invoke a marginal group that operates on our societal fringe, whose anti-semitism enjoys mainstream acceptance within Islam. Didn't you think before you typed?

"Hence, I cannot dismiss all Islam for the actions of the violent perpetrators, just as I would not want all Christendom to take the blame for its ugly and sometimes violent side."

I assume on 9-11 your first thought wasn't: "must be the Knights of Columbus" Who did you think did it before it was confirmed? Be honest.

According to you, Christendom ceased to exist around the year 1700,after the introduction of the
"separation of Church & State". Without entering into a debate about it's current mis-application, you should know the concept of a division between spiritual and temporal powers was first formulated by a Father of the Church 1000 years earlier. Why do you think Islam did not experience a similiar development and does that not trouble your cherished secular beliefs?

The fact is, your attempt at moral equivalence between 2 different faiths and the civilizations that grew from each, depends on willfully overlooking the historical record and suppressing your own common sense.

The mystery is; what propels you to do so?

There is something basically antiessentialist about much of this discussion, it seems to me. The bottom line question is whether a Christian is acting more Christian or less Christian when he engages in nondefensive violence; and whether a Moslem is acting more Islamic or less Islamic when he engages in nondefensive violence.

The antiessentialist will claim that it doesn't matter, because Islam just is whatever its adherents claim that it is, and Christianity just is whatever its adherents claim that it is. In other words, the antiessentialist simply presumes that there is no such thing as orthodoxy or heterodoxy per se.

But the antiessentialists in the discussion can't expect those of us who disagree to concede the point simply because they assume antiessentialism with respect to religion as part of their outlook. Because that would be begging the question.

I think before I type, and unlike you, I choose not to insult those that I debate.

Aside from that, I frankly have no idea how you concluded thus from what I said, nor do I feel the need to defend a mischaracterization of my views.

Let us talk religion-the psychopaths are another element.

Where is the hope? Must our country be a group of decedents of Lot's wife-philosophically speaking. History repeats itself because people seldom have a vision of hope. Our leaders are not visionaries but people with their heads in the clouds or introverted. We need leaders to account to us people-who got it together for a change. We must press them into service-and make them account to us. We need to unite this country. Here is bold. A wonderful article. Place on every candidates desk. I hope that person is never silent for the rest of his natural life.

Do you think that a certain group of people that hate you and your religion and your everything are going to change their belief system on their own?
Do you think that their own kin will somehow show them the truth?

They believe we are weak because of our evil ways-culture; and they have proved their superiority by 9/11 and other infiltrations. They are not intimidated by us or anyone in the world. If you want to look historically, when a country was weak-they pounced; if a country had it together-they stayed away. This person is right. We must put this on the front page and deal with it now and be honest and forthright in our words and actions. United! or we will be burned. I think that people are becoming so liberal that they are becoming cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It clearly, as illustrated so well, shows that by the way they talk. We are mush and they know it. The problem is US-not them.

They think they are right. Know people like that? I do. They will not change their view unless struck by a bolt of lightening-remember St. Paul.
Imagine: waiting for the redeemer then making a law to kill anyone who says he is the redeemer, and then doing it. Who does this sound like? Freedom and peace or war. Always war. Let us help them out of it.

That bolt of lightening is the Holy Spirit. And He lives in you and I. So when we are good examples, and good teachers-taking the faith to them; then they will have peace; and we will have peace. We freed the slaves-we can free them too. We are Americans after all.

The world has never had peace, but it can-if we believe in it.

When Christ comes in glory-that glory will be peace on earth. That is what His glory means.


Perhaps an appropriate beginning for such a discussion would involve the exegesis of the following documents, to determine whether there is in them any theological teaching even approximately analogous to the authoritative elaborations of Koranic jurisprudence, the hadiths, which incontrovertibly mandate the sanguinary interpretations of Islam:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church

The Westminster Confession of Faith

The Heidelberg Catechism

The Large Catechism of Luther

A Summation of Baptist Doctrine

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

Bearing in mind, moreover, that the Islamic approach to the Koran is not analogous to the Christian approach to the Bible; even the Baptists tend to deny in practice what they affirm formally concerning the sole sufficiency of Scripture and their common-sense-realism-influenced literalist hermeneutic. For the Muslim, the Koran is the direct and unmediated word of Allah, and as such, interpretation is something of an impiety; for the Christian, interpretation is inescapable.

Of course, the trouble with antiessentialism is that even the very surfeit of historical evidences can be waved away with complete nonchalance.

"For the Muslim, the Koran is the direct and unmediated word of Allah, and as such, interpretation is something of an impiety; for the Christian, interpretation is inescapable."

Well said. You hit on a root cause for the static nature of Islam and one of the major impediments to a fruitful and necessary dialogue with it.

The other great obstacle lies on our side. As Rose asked earlier, who do they see when they look at us?

We are wedged between 2 intrinsically anti-Christian forces. One is the Liberal Death Wish that prefers any culture to it's own and will not expire until it takes the finest achievements of our civilization with it. The other is the Soulless Utilitarianism that threateningly strides across the planet, building a technological Utopia that leaves little room for the particular, the traditional or the human.

Royale and others:

Read the Koran. The hatred is clear on nearly every page. There is nothing comparable in the New or Old Testament (God's command to the Hebrews to conquer Caanan was for one time in one area about 3,000 years ago, it is not comparable to the never ending command of Mohammed to subdue the entire earth.) The Crusades were a counter offensive after Christendom had been hammered and lost ground for centuries. Educate yourself that it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to lie to advance the cause of Islam. Realize that just because there are about a billion followers of this religion, doesn't negate the fact that it is a threat to non-Muslims everywhere. The dismissal of Coughlin is very disturbing.

It is not necessarily a 'we've been vilified' appeal to pity for victims, to stress the smearing methods used by the anti-culture.
It could and should be a means of casting light on the fact that the anti-culture has no broadly acceptable argument for allowing infiltration by enemies to the upper reaches of the national security apparatus. Instead of appearing as a victim then, one is on the offensive rhetorically, exposing the absence of good arguments on the other side: as, also, their failure to argue convincingly for their premiss that all cultures are equal and that there are no lasting enemies. Rice recently said America has no permanent enemies. Such statements need to be continually controverted, as they subvert defense, and when smears are used to throw the burden of proof elsewhere, and to get others on the defensive, trying to prove that they're not extremist Christians with a poison pen, only one option in debate can win decisively, one like the above-described.

I assume on 9-11 your first thought wasn't: "must be the Knights of Columbus" Who did you think did it before it was confirmed? Be honest.

And I assume that when Tim McVeigh blew up the gov't building, your first thought wasn't "There goes them Mooslims agin!"

(God's command to the Hebrews to conquer Caanan was for one time in one area about 3,000 years ago, it is not comparable to the never ending command of Mohammed to subdue the entire earth.)

That is a distinction of quantity, not of quality. God's commands included killing every man, woman, child, and animal. Of course, I am told that this is our God, but not the Muslim's Allah.

But I digress.

So, okay. I'll ask again, since there was no response the first I asked. Outside of going red in the face, shaking my fist at the sky, stamping my feet, and blowing raspberries at Mecca until I becoming dehydrated, what should be my collective response, as a nation of victims, to the perpetual onslaught of the Evil One as personified by the Mighty Muslim Empire of perfumed princes and penniless tribal camel drovers? The Rev. Huckabee wants to take away their visas. Gol-ll-lee! That seems a bit harsh! So far, on this site, the only proposals I've heard involve circling the wagons: voluntarily bottling ourselves up inside sealed borders for the rest of time, while the Muslims run amok on the entire Eurasian landmass. Good plan. Better take the kids on that vacation to Europe while it's still possible, folks.

I am grateful to the commenter above who made the patently obvious point that the sanguinary passages in the Old Testament are narrative not normative. If you really want to compare them to the doctrine of jihad in Islam, you're beef is with a proto-Judaism of distant antiquity, not with contemporary Judaism, much less Christianity. In short, Rodak, a different of quality, not quantity.

I regard the following statement as basically irrefutable: there is nothing in Christianity, as Maximos put it, "even approximately analogous to the authoritative elaborations" of the doctrine of jihad in Islam. That's it.

Now, let me just lay this out in detail:

No one is answering your question, Rodak, because you ask it in a way that is at once ignorant, asinine, insulting, and incoherent. You impute bigotry, extreme malice and stupidity to your interlocutors, and then stand in puzzlement at their reluctance to answer thoughtfully. You ask, "what should be my collective response [be]," thereby formulating a uniquely absurd amalgam of individual and collective. You sneer and rudely demand lists of proposals, having apparently forgotten the lists we have already provided, and remained baffled by our hesitancy to present you with a new one. This is the behavior of a child. If my 8-year-old finished her dinner, took her plate to the sink, and then turned around and shouted, "YOU NEVER GIVE US ANYTHING TO EAT!!" -- I might scratch my head in silence for a moment.

As for the implication that we recommend the abandonment of Europe to the Jihad, well, how about some evidence to support, big guy? But I warn you that what evidence there may actually contradict your implication.

Sometimes I get the sense that this website functions primarily as useful fodder for the strawmen that you confused ramblings require.

I remember when (on my personal blog) I gave Rodak a short list of ideas, he said he didn't think it was good enough because it was just "circling the wagons" and envisaged an unending situation of hostility from Muslims to the West. In other words, if I didn't suggest some sort of "final solution," which would, of course, be morally unacceptable, Rodak was going to say my ideas for the West's self-defense were insufficient because they were defensive in nature.

Paul made the following statement in his "Jihad and Democracy":

"I doubt that it commands majority support — but it certainly commands majority acquiescence, and enormous factional sympathy."

This is largely my point. Jihad is not embraced by all Muslims, hence I cannot dismiss all Islam as the enemy of the United States.

As for Jihad, I'm all in favor of stamping it out. Cruise missiles have a place, but I think a better tool are the more liberal and non-violent Muslims. For the latter understands the Jihad mentality and what's needed to beat them far more than I believe any Christian I've ever met. They (the Jihadists) are a common foe, and if we (Christendom, the West, India, China, and Japan) were allied with the liberal-moderate Muslims, they could surely be beaten,

Now, do liberal-moderate (i.e., peaceful) Muslims exist?

Yes. I've met them.

So have I. I'm guest-blogging for one right now: http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/.

I don't see how the Jihad-mentality is so hard to understand. Why do we need Muslims to explain the human instinct for aggression? What we need, rather, is the fortitude and imagination to grasp the uniqueness of jihad as a doctrine, and the power and peril of it as an imperial institution.

The Jihad mentality as it falls within the Muslim philosophy and culture and where it deviates from less violent theologies.

Paul and Zippy,

Does not the Jihad sedition law suppose an antiessentialsit nature to Islam? If you believe that the militant parts of Islam can be proscribed, you have implicitly accepted that those beliefs are optional for Muslims. I already accept that position as being the case. The problems with Islam are structural. It is highly decentralized, which makes orthodoxy almost a non sequitur, and it relies very heavily upon scriptural literalism, although even in that case the adherent learns to qualify which part of Mohammad's career to emphasize.

Does not the Jihad sedition law suppose an antiessentialsit nature to Islam? If you believe that the militant parts of Islam can be proscribed, you have implicitly accepted that those beliefs are optional for Muslims.

I don't see why. Giving someone the choice not to prosletyze harmful belief X on pain of prosecution doesn't really say anything about whether belief X is an essential part of the orthodoxy of religion Y.

Setting aside the objective right and wrong of it, suppose instead of proscribing Christian prosletyzing in general the Islamic countries outlawed Trinitarian prosletyzing. Does that make them antiessentialists with respect to Christianity? It seems not.

Now you might turn around and say that in proscribing prosletyzing on an essential doctrine of Islam we've effectively, as a de facto matter, proscribed the prosletyzing of (orthodox) Islam. I would even agree with that. But in terms of specificity, since what we really object to as seditious is the prosletyzing of violent Jihad it makes sense to formally proscribe exactly the behavior we intend to proscribe while leaving questions of orthodoxy and essentialism to the side. Forensic specificity in the application of the power of the positive law seems to me to be a virtue, especially where world views diverge.

What Zippy said.

This part, in particular: "It makes sense to formally proscribe exactly the behavior we intend to proscribe while leaving questions of orthodoxy and essentialism to the side. Forensic specificity in the application of the power of the positive law seems to me to be a virtue, especially where world views diverge."

...the Islamic countries outlawed Trinitarian prosletyzing. Does that make them antiessentialists with respect to Christianity?

According to orthodox Christianity, it most certainly does.

According to orthodox Christianity, it most certainly does.

Sounds rather like the reverse to me: they have penetrated to the core of Christian doctrine, and the fundamental respects in which it differs from theirs, and acted accordingly.

What Zippy said.

In fact, I have argued before on other threads that we should _not_ outlaw proselytizing for Islam in the very broad sense of making it illegal to preach that Mohammed is the prophet of God. Now, as a matter of fact, I think Mohammed is a _terrible_ example in his behavior and that his teaching was of violent jihad, but simply saying that he is God's prophet does not ipso facto involve teaching violent jihad, because various people might be mistaken about what, in fact, he taught and exemplified.

Agreed, Lydia. As far as I can tell, there is no compelling reason to outlaw mere proselytizing.

Rose,

With such comments as They do not like us because we are a virtueless mess. Unless our own culture changes, there will be problems with them. Unless we change-they will not!, it appears you do not know what exactly Islam teaches and had always taught.

As I had mentioned earlier, the Koran teaches

- "slay the pagans" wherever they find them (Sura 9:5)
- "fight" those who don't accept the "religion of truth" (Sura 9:29)
- denounce Christians who confess that "The Messiah is the son of Allah," wish that "Allah's curse be upon them" or "may Allah destroy them" (Sura 9:30)

Virtue, as far as the true Muslim is concerned, resides in following these to the letter.

They consider those who confess that "Allah is Christ the son of Mary" are "in blasphemy" (Sura 5:17), that Muslims should "take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other" (Sura 5:51) and that "they do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity" (Sura 5:73) for the "Fire will be his abode" (Sura 5:72).


Do you really think that any infidel practicing Christian virtue would actually deter them from carrying out the Will of Allah?


Most disturbing is your comment: The problem is US-not them.


You make it seem as if it is justified that innocent American people are slaughtered and that the Muslim terrorists who commit such acts are but heroic figures who are merely fighting against the tyrant known as America.

I believe it the case that Muslims do not consider either Christians, or Jews, to be pagans. Both are "people of the book" and, therefore, not pagan. There are, of course, the other objections that you mention.

I believe that Rose is at least partially correct. I think that if we kept those cultural traits to which the Muslims particularly object to ourselves--i.e., if we did not export them to Muslim regions--they would hold their noses and let us be on that account. This, of course, addresses merely the cultural issues, and not the geopolitical situation in Palestine, or the economic/hegemonic issue of the oil.

The reason for my exasperation on this issue is that the courses of action I've heard proposed do not seem to be at all commensurate with to the direfulness of the threat as I hear it being expounded. If Islam is truly a threat to Western civilization as we know it, then tinkering with immigration law and passing sedition acts isn't going to do the trick. And these things don't even address the global issues.

That said, any kind of "final solution" as Lydia puts it is out of the question for moral reasons that should not need to be delineated.

My proposal, therefore, is to at least attempt to find a peaceful solution; to at least try for a stalemate, if no permanent treaty is possible. In order to do this, we will first need to stop poking sticks into the cage of the beast.

A little humorous, non-PC annecdote:

I was watching the Today Show in the weeks or months after 9/11. On it, they had an anti-terrorist "expert" teaching the audience what to do in case your plane were hijacked, for instance what common passenger airplane items can be used as weapons.

He basically said something like this: "What would you do if someone comes on your plane, and yells 'ALLAH!' and hijacks your plane?"

Ann Courie, in complete bewilderment that he associated Allah with hijacking a plane on the Today Show, tried to diffuse the situation by cutting him off by saying something akin to: "now there are other reasons to hijack a plane besides Islam."

Poor Ann. I'm not sure what I would've said under those circumstances.

Allah be merciful and point me to that clip on youtube, because it was soooo funny.

Both are "people of the book" and, therefore, not pagan.

Rodak,

The verses literally say that *non-believers are to be killed* but there’s an exception for those who convert and there is an exception for "people of the book" -- that would include Christians, Jews and a few other groups who are willing to live in servitude in Muslim society as "Dhimmi".

Dhimmi are non-muslims who are typically Christians or Jews and a few others living in Muslim society and are allowed to, at least, privately practice their own faith without being killed but they have to pay special taxes that Muslims don’t have to pay and they have to assume the status of *2nd Class citizens*.

It is their directive as part of their beliefs to subject non-believers to Muslim rule, which includes an exhortation to make these feel thoroughly subdued so they have to assume a life that is in rather abject condition.

Make no mistake -- "people of the book" is but a euphemism.

Patriotic indignation should swell against this oppression. To say nothing of teason;

WASHINGTON (AP) - A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.
The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

Whatever, Mike. As I said, current elite opinion on Islam "begins with a deliberate closing of the mind, enforced by the standard methods of intimidation and vilification." The proper response to this oppression of the mind is defiance.

Care to actually address the substance of the post?

Oh, and can someone explain to me why the word "elite" does not refer to those actually in command of the grestest military and economic force the world has ever seen? And by this I mean politicians, transcorp execs and the military brass. The real elite of the U.S. is much closer to your position.

Why is the word "elite" reserved solely for the people (academics, movie stars) you feel so aggrieved by? It's a cheap populism.

And I did address the substance of your post, as I saw it. Oppression this, oppression that. Language that women, the poor and racial minorities used to use being trotted out by white folks that basically have the backing of the status quo. Very impressive!

It would seem that folks like Mike would have us believe that the victims of 9/11 were not the American innocents who lost their lives but, quite ironically, the Muslim terrorists themselves!

I am genuinely baffled here. Am I the one using the language of victimization, or am I the one attacking it?

Why is the word "elite" reserved solely for the people (academics, movie stars) you feel so aggrieved by? It's a cheap populism.

Hear, hear! I am so sick of this newspeak, demagoguing use of the word "elite."

And Mike is also quite correct in his reaction to the use of the word "oppression." Who is being "oppressed" here? Certainly not Americans. We do remain the stronger people. By what twisted, newspeak logic do the weak "oppress" the strong?

ARISTOCLES: It would seem that folks like Mike would have us believe that the victims of 9/11 were not the American innocents who lost their lives but, quite ironically, the Muslim terrorists themselves!

MIKE I am genuinely baffled here. Am I the one using the language of victimization, or am I the one attacking it?

Mike,

Thank-you for proving my point.

Indeed, the innocent people who were slaughtered on 9/11 weren't the victims at all -- it was the Muslim terrorists who, in your view it seems, bravely gave their lives in order to fight the Empire that is America!

We do remain the stronger people. By what twisted, newspeak logic do the weak "oppress" the strong?

I want to draw attention to this common liberal trope: If a "people" is defined in a liberal's mind as "strong" and another "people" as "weak," then *whatever* is done by individuals in the second group to members of the other, and however much the other group is prevented from defending itself, the by-definition "weak" can never be regarded as oppressing the "strong." This is very important. It comes up again and again and again. One set of people can murder large numbers of the other set, but they can never be the oppressors, because they are the victim group _by definition_ to the liberal mind. We will see a lot more of this as time goes on and we are asked to make ever more concessions to the Islamists. Because, you know, we are "the strong." Noblesse oblige, and all that.

"...even the very surfeit of historical evidences can be waved away with complete nonchalance."

That won't happen with this incredible discovery. It holds far-reaching ramifications and the potential for an explosive reaction. Pray for those overseeing this project;

"The truth is only now dribbling out to scholars -- and a Quran research project buried for more than 60 years has risen from the grave."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html

In the original post, Paul, you say "that the enemy finds his motivation, his inspiration, his justification, his rhetoric, even his strategy and tactics, in the authentic and primitive traditions of the religion of Muhammad?"

If you believe jihad to be an essential of Islamic doctrine, why would you find "no compelling reason to outlaw mere proselytizing"?

My proposal, therefore, is to at least attempt to find a peaceful solution; to at least try for a stalemate, if no permanent treaty is possible.

I'm afraid that Jihad is essential to Islam. Those "moderate Muslims" are simply not very devout. What the non-Muslim side sees as a "peaceful solution" is, for the Muslim side, simply a time to regroup. As well, history, recent history, has shown that those Muslims who make peace are quickly targeted and/or superseded by the militants (Anwar Sadat and Mahmoud Abbas come to mind).
Kevin, I doubt if the project in the WSJ article you linked to will bear much fruit in the Moslem world. It is kind of fascinating in a Robert Ludlum sort of way. But if it does actually turn out that this archive challenges the centrality of Jihad, it will still be dismissed as a bunch of infidels claiming to have suddenly come up with some "lost Koran" - how ridiculous! It will have no leverage over the faithful.

I hate to say it, but I think we are in for some real ugly times. Domestically, the time will probably come when the Muslim community comes under some very intense scrutiny and restrictions. WWII and Japanese interment come to mind (except this time they actually are harboring enemies). Internationally, we cannot let Iran gain nuclear weapons, nor can we let Pakistan go radical, nor can we let other regimes exist once they have become staging grounds for effective, large scale attacks on our soil. This means a lot of war and a lot of dead Americans and Muslims.
The ugliness in Europe will intensify as well.

This is all pretty grim. But we are facing a very old, resilient and protean enemy. Our culture's superior wealth and technology has given us a few centuries respite from this struggle. That respite has now ended.

Sweet Dreams folks.

and however much the other group is prevented from defending itself

Lydia--
And just where, and by whom, has America been "prevented from defending itself"? We have invaded two Muslim countries and have taken down the govenments of each and replaced them with other governments. We have killed tens of thousands of the residents of those countries. We have been successful in preventing any attacks at all within our borders since 2001. From most reports, al-Qaeda is pretty much destroyed and the hostile actions we are seeing now are being carried out by isolated cells of free agent jihadists. Yet you say that we are The Oppressed. I'll admit that I don't get it. One successful attack makes the strongest and richest nation that exists, or has ever existed...oppressed?
And here I thought that it was liberals who had the victim mentality...?

Because, you know, we are "the strong." Noblesse oblige, and all that.

We certainly don't have any obligation to make concessions to anybody which would render us more vulnerable to attack. That said, we do have the ability to negotiate from a position of strength. We should, therefore, push that advantage in the pursuit of a lasting peace. Perpetual warfare does not, and will not, benefit either side.

NasicaCato, in describing the most pessimistic worst case scenario, is at last being realistic in matching the implications of this post with the fundamental thesis of this post. If Islam is inherently violent and evil, then nothing short of all-out war is equal to the gauntlet it has thrown down at the feet of the West. You can't tinker away with adjustments to domestic law the blood-lust of a billion murderous fanatics.
I disagree with NasicaCato. I think that a live-and-let-live mutual agreement can be reached. However, if I am wrong, then NasicaCato is right. Circling the wagons will be shown to be an impotent response.

The oppression is mental in character, as I have repeatedly said, in the original post and in these comments. It is forced straitening of the mind. "Under its influence, the public mind of the Republic may have no compass over the character, the origins, the antiquity, the variations and predecents, of the war being made against us." The intellectual climate in elite circles in this country -- media, academia, politics, law enforcement -- forbids the kind of open discussion about the Islamic character of the enemy which is necessary for our self-defense as a nation. The hypothetical parallels that Diana West draws out are good illustrations. I call this oppression. We live in a deliberative republic. Self-government is our heritage. It is impossible without serious, unflinching deliberation and discussion. I am arguing from principles laid out in that obscure work The Federalist. "The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers" -- Madison, Federalist No. 63. "The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs" -- Hamilton, Federalist No. 71. What is the deliberate sense of the community in Islam? We cannot know because serious discussion of the topic is verboten. The topic began, after September 11, in a decisive closing of the mind, the descent of the wet blanket of political correctness and enforced by the standard methods of intimidation and vilification.

Again, Rodak, for about the tenth time: my concern is with domestic policy in America. I did not support the Iraq war. I am tempted to say that the aggressiveness of our foreign policy is a kind of displacement event for our feebleness in domestic policy. Because this statement: "We have been successful in preventing any attacks at all within our borders since 2001" -- is patently false. There have been a long string of small-scale Jihadist razzias on American soil since September 11. There was the attack on the El Al ticket counter at LAX. There was the DC sniper episode, where a single lunatic (whose actions he unambiguously justified on Islamic grounds) nearly shut down our capital city. There was the attack on the Seattle Jewish Center; the attack by a Bosnia Muslim on a mall in Salt Lake City; the hit-a-run nightmare on the campus of the University of North Carolina. I'm probably forgetting some others.

It is perfect demonstration of this oppression I speak of that so many people actually think we have been free from Jihadist terror on American soil since September 11.

Bill:

To quote Zippy again, "It makes sense to formally proscribe exactly the behavior we intend to proscribe while leaving questions of orthodoxy and essentialism to the side. Forensic specificity in the application of the power of the positive law seems to me to be a virtue, especially where world views diverge." I do not believe that there is a natural obligation to maintain freedom of proselytism, or whatever we might call it, but as a matter of prudence I agree with Zippy's statement on specificity, not least because I am not sure we ought to go so far as to state in law that jihad is "an essential of Islamic doctrine." It is not, for instance, one of the Five Pillars, and there will always be the confusion between "greater" and "lesser" jihad.

Now there may come a time when circumstances will require more drastic proscriptions of Islam, but I'm content for now to prohibit Jihad and end all Muslim immigration. I suppose the next step, which may already be necessary, would be to establish in law, in no uncertain terms, that Shariah is totally incompatible with republican government and the Constitution; and maybe even proscribe its promulgation.

I should probably clarify the sense in which I view my statement as a matter of principle and the sense in which I view it as a matter of prudence. As a matter of principle, prudence is not optional: that is to say, what we do with the blunt instrument of government (or in the exercise of any competent authority) should be proportionate to the need and should not exceed the mandate of that need. If I thought it was necessary to ban Muslim prosletyzing tout court in order to protect the common good there is no principle which would stop me from doing so. However, as a matter of proportionate response to a specific threat to the common good I don't see a mandate at this time to ban Islamic prosletyzing per se, just prosletyzing of violent jihad, since the specific threat comes from violent jihad.

I think it is merely respectful to say the truth to Muslims (and indeed to Protestants) that I think their religion is in error, and I believe it to be patronizing to the point of disrespect to pretend otherwise for the sake of making nice. I expect and respect the same from others who believe me to be in error. My objection here isn't to people believing what I think are errors and talking about it in public. I'm a ruthless authoritarian, to be sure, but free speech is without any question a contingent good among other goods, and it should be protected as a good of that kind. My objection is to sedition: to the public preaching of violence and treason; and the response should be proportionate to to threat.

...I don't see a mandate at this time to ban Islamic prosletyzing per se, just prosletyzing of violent jihad, since the specific threat comes from violent jihad.


Zippy,

With all due respect, how do you suppose we accomplish that?

We fight against a stateless enemy that can virtually assume any form.

There is no such means of identifying folks who specifically subscribe to the notion of violent jihad.

This is also complicated by the fact that since Muslims do not defer to a central authority where the Koran is concerned, any individual is free to interpret it to any radical degree they see fit and proceed accordingly, regardless of any fatwas issued by today's milder adherrents of Islam who may wish to deter acts of violence by fellow coreligionists.

Well, we could start by arresting and fining imams and other speakers in mosques who promote jihad. Sting operations with small videocams could find, as they have in Britain, _more_ than ample evidence to convict specific individuals. It would be a start.

I did not support the Iraq war. I am tempted to say that the aggressiveness of our foreign policy is a kind of displacement event for our feebleness in domestic policy.

Paul--
While I acknowledge those isolated incidents you cite as being Muslim-related, perhaps even jihad-inspired, they don't add up to conform to what I would call "oppression." They are more along the lines of "harrassment." But, why quibble over definitions?
My point about domestic immigration policy changes not being sufficient is that Muslim extremists target Westerners all over the globe, and have been doing so fairly regularly since at least the 1970's. Even if we could keep them all out of North America, no American travelling abroad will be safe, so long as the jihad--or "clash of civilizations"--persists. If we did take the measures you would like to see taken domestically, I think you can be assured that the attacks on travelling Americans would only increase as a result. Do we want to be bottled up inside what I have been referring to as our "circled wagons," or do we want to be able to enjoy the rest of the world in safety? By killing jihadists, even by discriminating against them, we are only sowing dragon's teeth.

"Well, we could start by arresting and fining imams and other speakers in mosques who promote jihad. Sting operations with small videocams could find, as they have in Britain, _more_ than ample evidence to convict specific individuals. It would be a start."


I strongly agree. We should.

A concern I have though - so many people are converted to Islam in jail, frequently by other inmates. If we arrest the Jihad-inspiring Imams, they'll go to jail, where they would continue to spread their venom.

Unless of course, solitary punishment for Jihadist-Imam.

To my knowledge, Britain merely just deports their Jihadist-Imams, it does not go far enough.

Yes, I was just referring to the evidence collected in Britain, not endorsing their measures. It's in Britain, after all, that the gov. has done the disgusting "Islam is Peace" propaganda campaign.

I would support outlawing Muslim prison chaplains for the very reason you cite. I don't know what other people think about this, but there is no sufficiently reliable way to vet prison chaplains for the incendiariness or otherwise of their variety of Islam. They could always say one thing and teach another once inside. And it isn't as though Muslims have to receive the Sacrament or something. Not seeing a chaplain would actually not violate any non-violent tenet of Islam for a particular Muslim in prison.

I concur with Lydia's sentiments as well; however, given the ever popular mindset for the politically-correct, I expect outrage rather than support for such ideas.

In addition, there have been those in America who have been converted to the violent jihadist mentality simply by various websites that advocate such things on the Internet -- many of which actually happen to reside in the U.S. of all places!

Rodak,

Once the nature of Islam is recognized, why shouldn't it be possible to persuade all non-Islamic nations to adopt similar tough anti-jihad laws to our own? We would be safe traveling to any nation that had the same jihad-sedition laws as ours.

Countries that didn't adopt good anti-jihad laws would be places that Americans would have to go at their own risk. There are already countries that Americans can't visit safely, but we don't typically make a big deal about that.

All wars impair trade and travel to some extent, but not enough to deter us from fighting necessary ones.

"I would support outlawing Muslim prison chaplains for the very reason you cite."

Do we have the moral energy and philosophical grounding to simultaneously take on the secular fundamentalists and the violent, racial separatists of the Nation of Islam ? Procedural liberalism and it's regime of "rights" has left us defenseless before any adversary savvy enough to pay rhetorical homage to "freedom".

Liberal Tradition, select your heir; Sharia Law or
a new Christendom? Choose wisely.

Yes, agreed! We really must stamp out "rights" and mostly particularly "freedom." Because remember: When rights and freedom are outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom and rights. Right-on, brother.

"When rights and freedom are outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom and rights."

What a fair-minded, accurate rendering of my point. Here it is; I think our Founders would be appalled to see the protections afforded by our Constitution, extended to those actively working to destroy our social order. But then they were endowed with, among other things, common-sense and a desire to live free from alien systems of thought that would shackle their Republic. You may disagree, but confront my actual argument and not some crude caricature.

A healthy culture is held together, as Kirk once said by; "subtle threads of moral and intellectual principle." Is it really "anti-democratic" to end our government's sanction of a hostile, armed doctrine that gathers it's foot soldiers from within our prison population? Are we so blinkered by a perverse understanding of rights, that we would place Christian chaplains on the same legal and moral plane as the "spiritual" representatives of an ideology of hate. All so we don't offend the sensibilities of liberal editorialists and the sworn enemies to our way of life? Apparently.

Note too, I am not advocating some of the brutish, illegal tactics that have been employed by this Administration; water-boarding, renditions and warrantless wire-taps.

Amen, Kevin. Rodak must be unfamiliar with the Conservative critique of "rights of man" Liberalism. Which is a bit puzzling considering his surety about Conservatives aims and principles.

Paul, I am waiting for Rodak to honestly confront real Conservative principles and not the cartoon versions routinely served up on cable TV, in daily newspapers and within faculty lounges. We would all benefit from an exchange held in good faith.

"Are we so blinkered by a perverse understanding of rights, that we would place Christian chaplains on the same legal and moral plane as the "spiritual" representatives of an ideology of hate."

I agree completely with the Imam-Jihadists. Absolutely. Deport, imprison, solitary confinement. I don't care. Get them gone.

But as for all Muslim clerics out of prison or jail, uh...no. I maintain that the best way to neutralize the Jihad is to drown it out with moderate forms of Islam.

This all begs the question of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. If a religion promotes the destruction of the US, then it can rooted out, barring of course any governmental action is narrowly tailored.

However, people do have a right to be Muslim. Any governmental action would have to be tailored against fighting the violent forms of Islam. And no, saying that "all Muslims are inherently violent because Islam is inherently violent" would not suffice.

And no, saying that "all Muslims are inherently violent because Islam is inherently violent" would not suffice.

But, Royale, how would we know that we had gotten them all unless get all of them that could be the ones we want to get? They are allowed to lie to non-Muslims, you know. They could probably even pass a lie detector test, if lying to a non-Muslim, since they'd feel no guilt or stress in so doing.
I propose that we round up the relatively benign illegal Hispanics first, as a kind of drill, since they may be roughly the same number of individuals. We will learn from the mistakes we make there, how not to proceed when we come for the Muslims.

The way to cut to the core of the problem is through this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1. The religion taught by the Prophet Muhammad in the Koran and in the Islamic Traditions or Hadiths, and formalized in the Islamic schools of jurisprudence, also known as the Sharia Law, shall not be practiced within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. This article supersedes any contrary provision of this Constitution and of the laws of the United States, and of the constitutions and laws of the several states.

Section 3. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress pursuant to this article shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008745.html

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.