Sunday, October 30, 2011

A Civil Religion


Sharia Law in America...  

Some want to ban it, but that would be unconstitutional.  Churches, sports leagues, and all manner of civil organizations are entitled to their bylaws so long as they do not run afoul of our constitution or our laws.  Individual practices may be found illegal, but the government cannot place a wholesale ban on a religion.

The problem, of course, is that vast numbers of Mohammedans now enjoying the ease and comfort of living in the modern western world insist upon dragging with them abhorrent cultural practices that violate our societal norms and our laws.   That is what we should adamantly oppose.

A Threat to One Religion is a Threat to All Religions

Those who would outlaw Islam (as if that were possible) must realize that a threat to one religion is a threat to all.  So the duty of a constitutional conservative or libertarian is to stand for the right of Muslims to practice their faith so long as it is done within the bounds of our constitution.

A Civil Religion

Our founding fathers consciously chose to put no religion above another, but to instead foster a civil religion, perhaps in the spirit Jean Jaques Rousseau.  I doubt he played much of a role in the philosophical development of the founders, but he expresses the non-sectarian zeitgeist of the age.
"Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship."  -- Jean Jaques Rousseau
In his chapter on Civil Religion, Rousseau put all religions into one of three categories:
  • "The true theism, what may be called natural divine right or law."  This is religion at its most elemental; man worshiping God without intervening pastors, altars and dogmas.  It is the God upon which our country was founded.
  • State Religions, including theocracies. Think the Pantheons of Rome, Greece, Iran, and the ancient Israelites.
  • Religions which conflict with the state. He placed Roman Catholicism in this category. He described such religions as one "which gives men two codes of legislation, two rulers, and two countries, renders them subject to contradictory duties, and makes it impossible for them to be faithful both to religion and to citizenship."
He praised the adherents of "Mahomet" for having crafted a religion in their own lands of the second category, where there is no contradiction between political and religious morality.  How things have changed since 1762!  Muslims have burst the bounds of their own homogeneous societies and have now displaced Catholics as the disturbing influence pitting the pious ululating hordes against the western states that invited them in. 

The philosopher also recognizes the salutary effects of personal morality on society: "it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion."   And it's no business of the state "provided they are good citizens in this life."

The US Constitution:  A Civil Profession of Faith
There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.
Theological Intolerance is Incompatible with a Free Society

By theological intolerance, he means being intolerant of those who do not share your religion.  This quote is best understood by imagining it coming from an intolerant religious bigot:
It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them: we positively must either reclaim or torment them.
Rousseau then explains why...
Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect; and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforce priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers.  
This is the standard to which we must hold every American.  Muslim, Christian, Atheist.  It matters not what your faith is, so long as it's practice does not violate our civil religion. 

(Rousseau - Social Contract, Book IV, Chapter 8, Civil Religion)

108 comments:

LD Jackson said...

Good post, Kurt. This is something that many religious people seem to forget. Muslims seem to be worse than other religions, but I know some Christians who are nearly as bad. Many of them are very intolerant of other faiths. While I have major disagreements of the religious kind with most other religions, just because I am a Christian shouldn't mean I can't live peacefully with Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, etc. That's part of what our country was founded on and we seem to forget that.

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks, LD.

This is where I'd like to see the pushback when Islamist troublemakers start their agitations. Don't attack the religion or argue on religious grounds; use the constitution as the basis!

They don't have a right to not be offended by seeing crosses or being exposed to people openly performing Christian religious practices or eating pork bbq.

Always On Watch said...

Certain, some aspects of shari'a law are not a problem within in the West.

But other aspects are! The West must not tip over into codifying into the rule of civil law what amounts to blasphemy laws. If the West goes that route, as surely as the sun rises in the east, the West will lose the freedoms that we claim we so prize.

Under shari'a law, criticizing Islam is a civil crime. See this alarm bell. Excerpt:

Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.

The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer....

Silverfiddle said...

@ AOW: The West must not tip over into codifying into the rule of civil law what amounts to blasphemy laws. If the West goes that route, as surely as the sun rises in the east, the West will lose the freedoms that we claim we so prize.

Amen sister! Blasphemy laws are anathema to a free society and violate our God-given individual free speech rights. They also violate the US Constitution.

That is how we argue against this.

ecc102 said...

Name the last time a Muslim strapped a bomb onto themselves and blew something up for the glory of Allah.

Name the last time a Christian strapped a bomb onto themselves and blew something up for the glory of Jesus.

Exactly.

Freedom or religion does not mean we need to be tolerant of a religion that is a threat to us. That's just plain silly. If my religion called for me to kill all the people in the world named Kurt, would you be so tolerant of it?

Freedom of religion is like Freedom of Speech. We all agree on it, but there are those unspoken no-no's. Like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or publicly declaring your intent to kill someone is to Freedom of Speech as Islam is to Freedom of Religion in America.

We need to be sensible. We need to be alert. Islam is not your friend. So this whole stoic and heroic defense of it on American soil is, to me, a bit ignorant.

Silverfiddle said...

If my religion called for me to kill all the people in the world named Kurt, would you be so tolerant of it?

Take a poll of Muslims in this country and ask how many believe in killing the infidel. It is not a ubiquitous belief among Muslims in this country.

We must stand against acts that violate the constitution, not an entire religion. It is easy to talk about the collective, but would you violate the rights of Muslims in this country peacefully practicing their religion?

So tell me, if you could wave a magic wand, what would you do?

Ducky's here said...

"Would you violate the rights of Muslims practicing their religion."
Many Americans would do it in a New York minute.

The abject ignorance surrounding sharia is pervasive but there won't be any attempt at understanding.

But we'll do our best to make this as adversarial as possible because that's the American culture. Domination, competition, winning ... we should pay more attention to our own neglect of community and cooperation.

Muslims are successful in America and the only threat created is from the fringe right who are notorious for trying to impose their culture.
Dominionists are a bigger danger than Muslims.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: Dominionists are a bigger danger than Muslims.

A wholly unsubstantiated claim.

Anonymous said...

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's a SUBVERSION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's an INVASION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it is an INCURSION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's an ABOMINATION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's a PERVERSION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's an ALIENATION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's an ASSASSINATION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it is a SEDITION.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it's moral and intellectual CONSTIPATION


~ FreeThinke

ecc102 said...

Kurt,

The needs of the few can never outweigh the needs of the many, regardless of how many feelings it will hurt.

When the Founders created the Constitution, I hardly believe they had the foresight to know there would come a time when the followers of Mohammed would be coming into America to kill us.

Again, Freedom of Religion isn't. There is a line one must be prepared to draw. There is that stand we must take.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but lately all terrorists have been muslims. We need to cease burying our heads in the sand for fear of being less than sensitive and call Islam what it is. We cannot afford to coddle the "peaceful muslims" while not knowing how many of them are not.

Anonymous said...

The US CONSTITUTION is not a SUICIDE PACT.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

The ONE THING WE CANNOT TOLERATE is INTOLERANCE.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

BRAVO, ecc102!

Beautifully stated!

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Islam is fundamentally opposed to, and therefore totally incompatible with the customs, mores and values of Western Civilization.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Wholly unsubstantiated, Silverfiddle?

You listen to Glenn Beck lately?

The Chrisian religiously insane are in the political process to a much wider extent than Islam.

Anonymous said...

When Ducky talks about our "abject ignorance" of a subject it only means that we have not been subjected to the same process of suicidal indoctrination that he has, and our thinking is not synonymous with his own.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

The Count of Anti-Cristo has spoken SilverFiddle. You'd better listen.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

"Count of Anti-Cristo,"
That's a good one!

You still have not substantiated your assertion, Ducky.

You can blab on all day about religious kooks, but bring evidence that people in power are putting "dominionist" laws in place.

Also, you reveal your true motives. You don't give a damn about religious liberty. You just enjoy using Islam as a stick to poke conservative Christians with.

Silverfiddle said...

ecc102 and FreeThinke:

What would you have the US government do, then?

Z said...

I feel a little differently, I think....and wrote and wrote but deleted; I'll try to come back later with more clearly formed thoughts.

is it theological intolerance when Muslim students complain about Catholic U's Catholicism? (although it's mostly a GWU law prof who's brought suit, most muslims there say they have ZERO problem with CU's tenets or symbols)

Anonymous said...

"They don't have a right to not be offended by seeing crosses ..."

Don't you mean They have no right TO be OFFENDED by the sight of crosses on public property

Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, the USA is at root a CHRISTIAN NATION. It was founded almost entirely by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants or products of a fundamentally CHRISTIAN culture, if you prefer. Even non-practicing Christians are still heavily influenced by the pervasive Christian culture in which they were raised, thank God.

Speaking of insanity: TOLERATING other belief systems is one thing. Letting them TAKE OVER and OBLITERATE our OWN is quite another.

I, for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of hostile foreign influences USING our Constitution to support the UNDOING of OUR Constitution. Perverse thinking has made a mockery of our founding documents.

To allow oneself to be fundamentally TRANSFORMED through the machinations of forces antithetical to one's own best interests is to suffer the DEATH of one's own IDENTITY.

The JEWS have refused to allow it to happen through five thousand years of diaspora, self-inflicted alienation and resultant persecution, so why should WE be expected just to sit back, relax and let ourselves be STEAMROLLED by the kind of people who never belonged here in the first place?

Put more directly: You can't invite wild beasts to sit at your table, and then expect to enjoy your dinner in the usual civilized fashion.

Legalistic thinking flies in the face of common sense and common decency.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

What should the US government do, SilverFiddle?

Submit the issue, clearly and unequivocally stated, to a plebiscite, then abide by the result.

Since most of our duly elected representatives have been bought off by special interests, our courts infested with radical leftists, and our Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to function as a Ruling Oligarchy, the only solution would be to take the issue directly to the people, themselves, who are after all supposed to run this country.

What was it Lincoln said in the midst of his self-sanctioned slaughter of six-hundred twenty-five thousand young American men? [We are going through this frightfully nasty business so that] "the government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth".

The incredible ironies with which we live!

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@ Z: is it theological intolerance when Muslim students complain about Catholic U's Catholicism?

Yes! They can complain all they want, but we're in danger territory when this becomes a petition our government gives serious consideration to.

FT: I can't believe you are seriously recommending direct democracy. All well and good until your religion gets voted off the island.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on, SF! "We" are STILL the MAJORITY -- and by a large margin.

What you -- and Thomas E. Dewey, I just learned on C-Span from Richard Norton Smith -- recommend is a slavish adherence to "The Rule of Law" which would effectively encourage and passively permit pushy, obnoxious, highly vocal MINORITIES -- and the whore lawyers with Ducky's mentality who love to serve them -- to push the MAJORITY off "the island."

Amazing coincidence that Dewey and Harold Stassen staged this exact debate on radio 64 years ago. They were talking about Communism, however, not Islam. I just heard a recorded excerpt. Stassen, by the way, was all in favor of outlawing Communism for the same reasons I have given here for ridding us of Islam. Dewey sounded, noble, righteous, just, kind-hearted and pure -- just like you. ;-)

Well, Dewey lost and so did Stassen. McCarthy and Nixon both virulent -- and effective -- anti-Communists -- were discredited, defamed and deposed.

You just can't be considerate and accommodating to people who tell you in no uncertain terms that they mean to do you in.

We've been doing that since McCarthy was put out of business and dragged through the mud, and LOOK WHERE it's GOTTEN us: One all-too-brief respite from insanity while Ronald Reagan held office.

Apparently, we STILL do not realize that both the Communists and the One Worlders have effectively been working together to destroy our sovereignty by eating us alive from within. Their method? They cynically use OUR laws and OUR Constitution by twisting and perverting the obvious intent of those who wrote them.

They LAUGH to see us stewing in our own juice. To them our system of Justice is nothing but a GAME to be played at OUR expense. Through willful misinterpretation and a militant insistence on literalism, our enemies make monkeys of us -- and of our Founders.

Why should we "TOLERATE" ourselves into EXTINCTION just to serve some pious, literal interpretation of a man made law?

~ FreeThinke

PS: The problem with Republicans is that most of them have been crypto-LIBERALS and PROGRESSIVES. We have had NO serious Conservative Voice in government since before we were born with the exception of Ronald Reagan, and even he was not strong enough to combat the relentless leftward creep we've suffered wth for over a hundred years. - FT

conservativesonfire said...

Religion is how people interact with their god. We should be totally tolerant of people's religion. Ideology is how people interact with other people. We should not be tolerant of ideologies that go contrary to our laws and culture. Islam is both a religion and an ideology. Islam the religion we should tolerate; Islam the ideology can not be tolerated in it's totality.

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Silver,

If Islam were indeed a "religion" I would agree with your post.

But Islam is NOT a "religion" but rather a bastardized version of two others, otherwise known as a cult.

Now being the U.S. Constitution has no wording or reference in it pertaining to such, a cult, and Islams law is in direct conflict with U.S. law I see no problem opposing and yes being very intolerant of it.

Being intolerant of a cult does not make me or any other less an American or Christian but rather the opposite, better ones.

Anonymous said...

Christopher is correct.

Conservativesonfire is misguided.

The argument SilverFidle is trying to make is obviated by these very words of Rousseau he quoted.

To wit:

1. "Tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship." [Emphasis added.]

2. It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them: we positively must either reclaim or torment them."

3. "Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect; and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforce priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers."

What could be plainer?

There is no middle ground, unless WE voluntarily cede our identity to any hostile foreign power that chooses to occupy our land.

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION; IT'S A MILITANT OCCUPATION.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Leftist would have us give up Abrahamic religion altogether in favor of Cultural Marxism -- their own signature brand of SECULAR religion.

A CIVIL religion is not the same thing as a SECULAR religion, yet it's easy to confuse the two.

The REAL question we are trying to deal with here today is this:

Does any ONE splinter faction have an inherent, God-given right to attempt to ANNIHILATE the cultural identity of the MAJORITY by using laws written by the majority to force alien values on the majority?

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

@ Z: is it theological intolerance when Muslim students complain about Catholic U's Catholicism?

-------------

Actually it's gross ignorance to state this is a Muslim issue.

Secular students made the same complaint at Boston College about crucifixes in the classroom and were politely told that the crucifix stays. The same will happen at Georgetown if this is in fact even a real issue and not something made up on World Net Daily.

What is objectionable is when whining fundies like yourself comment without knowing their butt from their elbow.

Finntann said...

"Submit the issue, clearly and unequivocally stated, to a plebiscite, then abide by the result."

So much for the Republic eh?

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

James Madison

http://madison.thefreelibrary.com/

“That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world”

John Adams

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/that_the_desires_of_the_majority_of_the_people/173761.html

Obviously hit a nerve with that one SF... let me twist the knife a bit.

The only difference between a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist Muslim is the religion. They are both funamentalists and equally dangerous.

So DO THE CAPS MAKE YOU MORE RIGHT?

Talking about intolerance? Jeez... look in a friggin mirror will you.

CULT: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

1. formal religious veneration : worship

2. a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents

3. a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents.

Might I point out that by definition 3. you're all cults in each other's eyes?

Jack Camwell said...

I'm sort of bothered by how many times I've seen people say "the needs of the few should never outweigh the needs of the many" this week.

I think a careful reading of Federalist #10 (?) is in order for some of you? I'm fairly sure that the Founding Fathers specifically wanted to safeguard us against the notion of utilitarianism.

Democratic society is about fostering the *common good* not the greater good. Our society is about reaching workable compromises and solutions. It's not about the many ruling over the few, or the few ruling over the many.

The "needs of the few" argument is one that is put forth by those in the "many" category. You'd be screaming bloody murder if you were among the "few" and felt that your rights and way of life were being assaulted by the tyranny of the majority.

Silverfiddle said...

FT: You still have not provided a constitutional remedy.

Christopher comes close, but do you really want the government deciding what is a religion and what is not (as if that were even possible)?

Islam has leaders, a holy book, bylaws, religious sites, places of worship and billions of adherents.

You're going to have to explain exactly how declaring it a non-religion would work.

Christopher: The argument you make can also be employed to declare Christianity a non-religion, since it could be declared a "bastardized" version of Judaism, and therefor not a true religion.

Silverfiddle said...

FT: Rousseau's words are not the foundation of this nation, the US Constitution is.

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

@ Silver,

Incorrect Sir, Christianity is believing in and following one who was born into Judaism and sought not only to fulfill His Fathers Words but to correct the humans who wish to adhere to them.

That my friend is not a cult.

Once again, as I have done so elsewhere and maybe here on Western Hero, I will point to a source that backs my point:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

p.s.

"Islam has leaders, a holy book, bylaws, religious sites, places of worship and billions of adherents"

As does Scientology, not billions though, so do you consider that a valid "religion" as well?

Z said...

Ducky, you missed it all again...gad:

Catholic University is a private university. People who attend Catholic University know going in what the religious lay of that land is. By the way, Boston College is private, too....why would they succumb to people coming to a private Jesuit school and telling them they need to get rid of the crosses? Nowhere else to attend? or agenda?

And, by the way, it's a prof at GWU who's brought this suit...apparently, he makes a bit of a living at it. FOX had quotes from many Muslim students who said they've felt completely at home there, not threatened at all, and even unsure why this professor's carrying on.

Actually, I don't like to be too unkind, so I'll just throw your own words to me above at you now, about those who "comment without knowing their butt from their elbow." You just did a really damned good job, by the way. I think you're listening to too much Olbermann or Maddow...that never pays off.

By the way, I"m noticing that every time I finally delete your more hateful comments from my place, I see you whining at someone else's blog about GeeeZ or you insult me extra hard like today; I didn't know it bothers you so much but it's not like I don't warn you many times before deleting, is it.

SF: Sorry, I don't think I implied government should get involved....I certainly don't think so, particularly in a situation like that at Catholic. U.. A private university has every right to do anything they want and certainly shouldn't need government to tell anybody complaining about it to back off.....this is a slam/dunk.

Alligator said...

Ducky - you said,

"Dominionists are a bigger danger than Muslims."

I've heard Rosie O'Donnel and a few other celebrities make that assertion without giving specific examples. Can you provide 3 or 4 specific examples that demonstrate a concerted pattern of danger?

Then you said "have you heard Glenn Beck lately?" Again, can you provide maybe three of four statements that demonstrate a concerted pattern?

Just asking, because I am curious to see what would constitute your evidence. Thanks.

Finntann said...

You tread dangerous ground when you wish to declare one religion a cult and another valid.

By your reason, Protestantism is a cult having deviated from the Catholic church by following the heretics Luther, Calvin, Knox, et.al.

The founding fathers were well aware of the evils of religious sectarianism, evils manifest not only in Islam but in Christianity. For many it was the evils of sectarianism that prompted migration to the new world.

Is the call of the Muezzin that different than the bells that have been calling you to Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline all these years? Or do you in your ignorance forget the meaning of those bells?

"As does Scientology, not billions though, so do you consider that a valid "religion" as well?"

As valid as yours... or is your definition of religion extend to only those that follow Christ? Or perhaps out of guilt you'll include the Jews as well.

What about all those Mormans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs?

Is it freedom of religion or perhaps more accurately in your minds freedom of Christianity?

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Kid said...

I basically agree with you, but given that most of sharia law is in opposition to basic rights granted under American law and the constitution, in particular, crime and punishment, and gender equality rights, I don't see how you could allow much of sharia law to be practiced in the USA anyway.

Silverfiddle said...

Christopher:

Your opinion means nothing (neither does mine). The US Constitution matters.

As Finn just said, if you are not a Catholic, you are an adherent to a heretical sect and not a true religion, by your own logic.

Now, tell me how your banning of Islam would work under our constitutional form of government.

Silverfiddle said...

Z: I was agreeing with you that complaining about crucifixes is religious intolerance.

You (with the CU issue) and AOW (with the "blasphemy is hate speech" argument) have raised real issues that are a danger to our God-given freedoms. If either of these troublemaking petitions are given a serious hearing and, God forbid, result in special rules that silence critics of Islam, we are indeed on the road to hell.

I do not believe in collective punishment (which is what Christopher and FT are advocating). Can you imagine the United States of America forbidding people from holding a certain faith?

I do believe in identifying and punishing criminal behavior. I also believe in being just as loud and noisy as the Islamic provocateurs as we get in their faces and tell them they have no special privileges here and their religion is just as open to criticism, lampooning, and ridicule as any other.

They can like it or lump it, or take it back to the Middle East and dump it, but this is the land of the free and home of the brave because we respect the rights of others, and freedom from being offended is not one of those rights!

Anonymous said...

When we stop venerating Abraham Lincoln, then maybe we could start respecting the Constitution again.


Consider what this nation has done to the Indians and their native religions.


Consider what we have done to Negroes.


Consider what we have done to homosexuals.


Consider how this nation persecuted Mormons and forced them to change their mores and religious practices, because their “religion” seemed odious to the opinion of the majority.


Consider the imperious, extralegal actions of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR -- and plenty of others I’m sure -- and then tell me again about strict adherence to the Rule of Law.


Consider how the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have taken it upon themselves time and time again to short-circuit the legislative process and circumvent the Will of the People to “Legislate from the Bench” because the Courts have decided that THEY knows what’s right for America better than her citizens.


The Constitution was not written to protect the inalienable rights of brute savages, homicidal maniacs and traitorous vermin, and if it was, I want no part of it.

Our lives, our children’s future and the sanctity of our property are at stake, and you’re playing intellectual games with legalistic concepts!


You can be just as smug, self-righteous, insolent and condescending as you like about strict adherence to Constitutional Principles, and take great pride in your virtue as a pious, law-abiding citizen and a model of good deportment. Just remember when the swine before whom you have cast your pearls of wisdom and superior knowledge turn and rend you, you will still be legally dead.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Christopher,

I appreciate your comments today a great deal, but have to say that comparing Scientology to Islam is like comparing the pollen from Goldenrod to Cyanide.

[NOTE: In case you didn't know it Goldenrod produces symptoms of hay fever in certain individuals.]

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

I am not smug, self-righteous, insolent nor condescending.

I am asking you how a ban on Islam would work in this constitutional republic.

You've answered, "a plebiscite."

Let's wave a magic wand and say that passes constitutional muster and Islam is banned.

Now what? How is this enforced?

More importantly, whose next?

Z said...

SF...God bless you; I couldn't disagree with one word there in your last comment to me (and the one just above this, too).
Bravo.

I will say this, however:
You said "God forbid, result in special rules that silence critics of Islam, we are indeed on the road to hell."

I do believe that, very soon, one private Catholic University WILL cave....and then what? That's a road to hell that's far more foreseeable than our government silencing critics through any means. What do we do then?

Silverfiddle said...

I'm not so sure CU will cave. The dean there just reinstituted single-sex dorms, so he's not playing around when it comes to his religion.

It will also be interesting to see how many Muslim students step up as witnesses for the university.

The Muslims I have known were not provocative activists. From my own small anecdotal sampling, I think most American Muslims hate stuff like this.

What the courts do with it is a whole other matter. That is the wildcard, and that is what's wrong in this country, that such a case could even be contemplated.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't thinking of you, SilverFiddle. Sorry you thought that. [I thought maybe you'd know better than that by now.] You did, indeed, "strike a nerve" with this one, however.

I have never gotten over 911. It's still as fresh in my mind as the day it happened. The anger will never go away. I have been fuming at the LACK of anger and the LACK of any meaningful action taken against the perpetrators and followers of this depraved mentality ever since. I lost all respect for George W. Bush the day he mewed into the microphone, "Islam is a religion of peace."

I see that my analogies and my appeal to pragmatic considerations failed (or were ignored, because my initial comments were so heated). Let's just agree to disagree on this, please, and let it go at that. My point of view is unpopular everywhere. You may say, "Thank God!" to that, if you like. My days will soon be drawing to a close anyway. Pat Buchanan, however, has laid out a very persuasive case that the West is living in Suicide Mode. I don't want to, but I couldn't agree more.

Your words are fine, but I don't believe noble idealism on so high a level could possibly stand if push comes to shove

When your back is against the wall, the Law of Self Preservation supersedes all other considerations, unless you're the rare kind of hero who willingly falls on a live grenade to save his buddies. That, of course, is a very special, saintly kind of thing -- in a class by itself -- and has little to do with the kind of slavish devotion to The Rule of Law that could very well kill us.

One of the philosophers said something to this effect:

Nobility cannot survive in this world, because by its very nature it is doomed to self-destruct.

Horribly cynical, I know, but despite my fervent desire to think differently, it has to me the ring of truth about it.

Very frankly I hope you are right and I am wrong. Being perceived as "right "is not important to me; being understood as candid and forthright is.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

Kid: "I don't see how you could allow much of sharia law to be practiced in the USA anyway."

The same way Judeo-Christian law is practiced... voluntary participation.

Honestly only about 2.5 of the commandments are enshrined in civil law.

Thou shall not kill.

Thou shall not steal.

Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (that's the half...as technically it's only illegal if under oath or crosses the line of slander or libel).

Thou shall have no other gods before me.

Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Thou shall observe the sabbath day and keep it holy.

Honor your father and your mother.

Thou shall not commit adultery (still on the books but mostly unenforced in a couple of states).

Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife.

Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods.

All pretty much perferctly legal in America today and throughout most of our existence.

So how do you practice Christian law? By voluntary adherence and self imposed punishment or restitution.

It is only when you seek to enforce these standards on otheres that you violate our law and constitution.

What's the difference between biblical law and sharia law? Other than your belief in their validity.

Should the Amish be prevented from shunning? Should the Catholic be prohibited from doing pennnance? Where do you draw the line between one value set and another?

Ducky's here said...

No z, I didn't miss a thing. While you and Silverfiddle wet your pants because of the scary Muslim threat you fail to notice that Catholic colleges go through this issue form time to time. It has happened in one form or another at Boston College, Notre Dame, Fordham and others.

Jesuit institutions continue to maintain their identity and if you are paying attention you know that under the current Pope it is extremely unlikely there will be any compromise.

You and Silverfiddle need to take a deeper look at how the "papists" operate. You know as little about Catholicism in America as you do Islam yet you just push on.

Anonymous said...

The Count of Anti-Cristo aka The Voice of Authority has spoken yet again.

We should all be trembling in our boots.

}}}}}}}}}}}}SHUDDER{{{{{{{{{{{{

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

@Finntann - What's the difference between biblical law and sharia law?

-----

Not much.

We do allow religious courts in America. Orthodox Jews take various torts to a religious court if both parties agree.
Judges are receptive because there is more acceptance of the verdict which leads to fewer appeals and a lower court load.

A sharia court wouldn't be much different.

Felonies must stay in the normal state courts.

It's not so bad. Hell, back in the day Cardinal Cushing had more influence over the secular courts here in Boston than Islam ever will.

Finntann said...

“The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."

~Salmon Rushdie

The underlying issue isn't really freedom of religion (although it is an aspect), but freedom of expression.

Where in god's name has this belief in a right to a freedom from being offended come from?

Honestly it is time we came to grips with this an put our collective foot down. Muslims offended by crosses? Tough... Christians offended by the Adhan (call to prayer)? Tough as well.

It is the balkanization of America by special interest groups that is the real danger.

The atheist's offense at a creche in the public square is no more valid or righteous than the fundamentalists offense at the Playtex Bra billboard his kids pass under going to and from sunday school.

GET OVER IT!

The Muslim has no more chance of imposing theocracy on America than the Evangelical or the Catholic.

Unless of course we go overboard and are willing to sacrifice our freedom for temporary security, and we all know what Ben Franklin had to say about that.

You don't need protection for speech everyone is going to agree with, you need protection for speech that runs against the grain, that the majority are going to find offensive, vile, and disgusting.

"A “multicultural” society needs not sensitivity training but insensitivity training — that’s to say, thicker skins. The alternative is what is happening in some of the oldest free societies on earth: a state ever more comfortable in regulating the citizenry’s speech, thoughts, and jokes. There’s a word for that, and it isn’t “diversity”."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265353/human-right-not-be-offended-mark-steyn

So you're offended, so what?

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Strictly speaking, Islam is not a religion. It is a social system. If we allow Sharia Law to become a part of our legal system, then by all rights we must allow Canon Law to also become part and parcel of our legal system as well.

Catholic (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican,etc.,) Canon Law is fine and right for the Churches to function properly. Catholics do NOT stop any one from having, performing or advocating abortions. People are free under our Constitution to do these things, and God, after all, gave us free will to decide for ourselves to obey or disobey His Commandments. However, the Church does have the right to excommunicate those who have and continue to commit such transgressions against God and the Church. Government does not have the right to dictate to the Church what the Churches Laws are to be. The Christian churches to not execute those who violate Church Law, at least not in this day and age. Excommunication is the punishment used by the Church in this day and age, thank God.

Sharia on the other hand demands all sorts of very vile punishments. Under Sharia, one is not excommunicated from the Religion for what most consider would consider minor infractions, as well as major infractions, instead the offending individual is either maimed, whipped or excommunicated from life itself.

Even though in their prayers, they refer to Allah as merciful, under Sharia Law, mercy is never shown.

Canon Law is for the governance of the Church, not for lay or civil society, therefore Canon Law is not anathema to Constitutional or civil law which governs civil society. On the other hand, Sharia governs not only Islam in the mosques, but every day civil society as well, which is DEMANDED by the Koran, which places Sharia at odds with our Constitution.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Sharia is not a religion, not JUST a religion. It's a political ideology that encompasses all areas of life from politics to economics to socio-cultural mores. Continuing to pretend it's a religion only is a problem. A big problem.

Kid said...

@Finntann, let me know when cutting off the hands of 12 yr olds for stealing and stoning teenage girls for the crime of being raped makes it into the constitution.

Meanwhile, if they want to go to their mosques and talk to mohammed and/or kiss the ground 5 times a day facing East, I could not care less. Just abide by the laws of This land.

Kid said...

PS, backing up what Fuzzy said, I personally see the koran as a blueprint for worldwide conquest as opposed to 'a religion'.

Along those lines, I think the concept of "a Religion", in terms of officially recognizing one as such, Could be defined. They reclassified Pluto didn't they and Pluto even has a moon.
Anyway, my loose beginnings of a description would start with what a religion is Not. And any scripture that does not allow for equal rights for all of God's creatures doesn't even get a foot in the door. Let alone one that classifies women as less than dogs.

Oh, one says moderate muslims don't follow that line. Well Outspoken Exception to this Talks, and Not condemning it walks as far as I'm concerned.

Silverfiddle said...

Good luck getting Islam declared not a religion, but for those that keep coming back to this, I'll ask again...

How would your idea work, banning the religion of Islam? We need some details.

And kid, of course we have laws against cutting off hand, stoning someone and rape, etc. So what is your point?

Muslims are free to practice Sharia here so long as it does not violate our laws. So dietary restrictions are in, cutting off heads and stoning people are out. Pretty simple.

No one is suggesting codifying Sharia into US law or the constitution.

Silverfiddle said...

FT: I'm glad I haven't offended you. Being offensive was not my purpose. We are constitutionalists, so we must think through these complex issues.

It's easy to defend the right of the First Presbyterian Church to sponsor a prayer chain on a sidewalk in front of a public school...

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Kid.

Thank you Father Gregori.

Thank you, Ms. FuzzySlippers.

~ FreeThinke

Kid said...

Well, if Christians were to move to a country professing religious freedom, but their local laws prohibited some Christian practices, where would that leave Christians, and where would that leave a country that professes religious freedom? So, My point is more of a question that a statement.
In regard to muslims, I don't see them being happy about being restricted. That's all. Not the ones that are actually making things happen in the USA. Activists, CAIR.

As far as dealing with it, I see it as an endless chain of putting people in jail who violate our laws - a very passive aggressive approach that leaves me about as happy as I am with much of anything going on in government today.
Let me ask you. If muslims gain political majority in American government, what is to stop them from changing our constitution and our legal system to be compliant to sharia, like they are heavily working in England today?

And in anticipation of a question, Is today's government representative of the majority of Americans. Nope.

I don't claim to have a definitive answer, but I know that some mindless acceptance of muslim/sharia or any religion for that matter (Not accusing you of such) isn't going to do us any good.

Anonymous said...

" ... Rousseau's words are not the foundation of this nation, the US Constitution is"

Jefferson and the other Founders were heavily influenced by several Enlightenment thinkers. If Rousseau was not among them, maybe he should have been.

The words of Rousseau you quoted are eminently sane and would have sound practical value if applied.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Excellent questions, Kid.

Theoretically, the constitution would prevent Muslims from converting this into a theocracy, just as it keeps Ducky's dreaded Dominionists from doing the same.

There are no easy answer, and I am with that too many people are completely mindless in embracing anything that seems to crap on our traditional values.

Z said...

SF: Good to hear the Dean's sticking up for decency with same-sex dorms.

As a Catholic who detests Protestants and takes any chance he can to insult them, that must bother Ducky a lot; after all, I suppose one could say it restricts a coed's right to immorality in sexual freedom in a Catholic school's attempt at an antiquated kind of decency only some will remember let alone honor.
How awful.....How very noninclusive...almost Protestant in its good values.
:-)

Anonymous said...

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."

~Salmon Rushdie

Did Salmon ever try telling that to the JEWS?

~ FreeThinke

Kid said...

SF, What worries me about this subject as well as many others - is that we have someone in the White House right now who treats the constitution like toilet paper.

Unopposed I might add.

Balance of power? Checks and balances? Fairy tales these days.

Finntann said...

Kid, you and I are saying the same thing. One can no more consent to capital punishment outside the laws of this land than one can consent to indentured servitude.

"And any scripture that does not allow for equal rights for all of God's creatures doesn't even get a foot in the door. Let alone one that classifies women as less than dogs."

You know, that definition would eliminate some if not many of the mainstream Christian sects in this country. Do you honestly think the agenda for evangelic conversionism is any different?

ROFLMAO @ "Papists"... that's almost as good as "Calvinist gutter religionists".

Ducky, Ducky, Ducky, all this anger and hate can't be good for you.

I used to be as rabidly secularist as you seem to be. In my younger days I used to get all bent out of shape over the non-denominational invocation and benediction at military ceremonies vis a vis the separation of church and state.

Really, if it comforts someone who is getting promoted, a new command, or who is retiring to have the god that they believe in invoked in their ceremony, what harm is there in it. The words don't harm us, the beliefs don't harm us.

We have always been a society focused on deeds not thoughts, on actions, not words. As long as you comply with the civil code your beliefs are yours and yours alone, just as your personal animosity towards religion and faith are your business.

The good and bad in religion, like the good and bad in anything else are the makings of men, not of god.

Kid said...

Finntann, You said -
"And any scripture that does not allow for equal rights for all of God's creatures doesn't even get a foot in the door. Let alone one that classifies women as less than dogs."

You know, that definition would eliminate some if not many of the mainstream Christian sects in this country. Do you honestly think the agenda for evangelic conversionism is any different?


I don't buy that conclusion, but if that's true then let it be.

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.

Z said...

something wrong with traditional values?


Finntann "The good and bad in religion, like the good and bad in anything else are the makings of men, not of god."
true, as long as that 'g' isn't capitalized...

Z said...

I just saw that 'dog' line...
in the Christian Bible? That, I've never seen. You mean all those billions of Christian women over the years missed it, too? :-)

Ducky's here said...

@Most Rev. Gregori - Catholics do NOT stop any one from having, performing or advocating abortions.

-----
Are you on the planet?

How often have various bishops called for excommunication for voting for choice?

Remember the flap over Father Drinan supporting choice in the Congress? Apparently not.

Buy a vowel.

Anonymous said...

" ... We are constitutionalists, so we must think through these complex issues."

Oh I've been thinking abut them -- long and hard -- for over ten years.

All I've seen, since we were attacked by Islamaniacs on 911, is the rise of Muslims to unprecedented heights in our society -- they have become more prominent, more vocal, more demanding, more nettlesome -- and more disturbing than ever before.

In fact before 911 I never noticed them -- never thought anything about them other than a vague distaste for the invariably depressing images that came from the Middle East -- but from the way things have gone since the 911 attack , you would think that WE had attacked THEM.

God knows, our friend Z has chronicled hundreds-if -not-thousands of pieces involving the increasing special attention and special privileges Muslims have been demanding -- and GETTING -- since THEY attacked US.

Our "leaders" hem and haw, stutter and stammer and drool saliva all over themselves parsing their words in a desperate attempt not to "offend" MUSLIMS, while we poor Christians are expected to suffer slander and take endless libelous abuse from our depraved entertainment industry and an avowedly hostile press.

If we had clamped down on Muslims, and started internment and mass deportation proceedings on 9/12/01, instead of mollycoddling the filthy bastards, we'd be better off today. It's our spineless determination to play "fair" with sworn enemies who haven't the slightest intention of EVER playing fair with US -- and who have said OUT LOUD they are determined to KILL us -- that has destroyed our credibility and prestige abroad.

Our electing a president from a Commie-Muslim background whose middle name is HUSSEIN, for Christ's sake, was really the last straw.

We're trying to play a nice civilized game of Golf, while they're playing Dungeons and Dragons -- with real swords.

~ FreeThinke

Kid said...

FreeThinke

I agree with a bunch of that. Especially the part that recognizes they have gained ground in this country since 9-11, while we have lost. Outside all of that noise, that is the statement at the bottom of the page.

That we don't have enough balls to tell them they don't get a mosque next to ground zero, when we all know (those who do know) that they build celebration centers right next to all their mass murder events... Please. Building permits have been refused for so little and so many reasons, it boggles the mind.

Anonymous said...

"Let's wave a magic wand and say that passes constitutional muster and Islam is banned.

"Now what? How is this enforced?"


Now THAT is darned good question, my friend.

How, indeed?

This may seem a quantum leap, but I immediately thought after I saw your question that same problem applies with regard to the illegal immigrants who have firmly established a presence in the millions.

THEY are disobeying the LAW. And yet, they are an ESTABLISHED FACT OF LIFE. Dislodging them and deporting them is in all probability a physical impossibility as well as an offense against morality and decency where long-established, hard-working residents who've bought property and raise children are concerned.

Personally, I believe these folk have "Squatters's Rights," and should be given a pass. The right wing rhetoric against them doesn't jibe with my own personal experience and long observation of the phrnomenon.

That aside, the MUSLMS are far fewer in number and far more of a threat to the continued and unhampered existence of our "free" society than all the illegals combined.


Father Gregori's assessment of Islam and that of Ms. Fuzyslippers, Christopher and one or two others is dead on target.

Islam is like a mental, moral, spiritual and social CANCER. How do we treat cancer once we detect it in the body?

You know the answer as well as I.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

@Fuzzy - Sharia is not a religion, not JUST a religion. It's a political ideology that encompasses all areas of life from politics to economics to socio-cultural mores.

-----

What Abrahamic religion isn't?

Fundamentalists have the complete package - Laissez-faire capitalism, limited governance and Old Testament mores.
Only a separation of church and state has saved us from this catastrophe although there are chinks in the wall.

Anonymous said...

"So you're offended, so what?"

If I understand you rightly. Finntann, it has nothing to do with feeling "offended." Instead, it has everything to do with feeling threatened -- first with the loss of our cultural identity, and then with the loss of our lives.

Maybe there's a kind of poetic justice in what-appears-to-be happening, because Britons and Spaniards,. Portuguese. Italians and French explored the world, and saw fit to INVADE, CONQUER, EXPLOIT or KILL societies they deemed inferior.

The Middle East has been overrun and carved up by Europeans for centuries.

The Semitic peoples nurse grudges for centuries, are extremely vengeance prone, but have long patience.

I guess their time may soon arrive at last. We appear to have had ours.

The system of Law and Justice in which you have such absolute faith means NOTHING to those people. They are arriving here in increasing numbers and breeding like proverbial flies. Once they outnumber us in our own land WE won't stand a CHANCE. Either we will be dead, or we will shall become their Dhimmis.

They've already infiltrated our government, our armed services, our communications media, our medical profession. They will continue to practice Takeeya, until their strength has increased enough to enable them to strike.

Z will tell you all about Ken Timmerman -- and many others -- who have written all about it.

It is not "annoyance" or "distaste" that motivates me, it is DREAD.

Read LONDONISTAN by Melanie Phillips.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

My God FT... just listen to yourself.

"If we had clamped down on Muslims, and started internment and mass deportation proceedings on 9/12/01, instead of mollycoddling the filthy bastards, we'd be better off today"

Yes it certainly worked with the Nips didn't it?

"Islam is like a mental, moral, spiritual and social CANCER. How do we treat cancer once we detect it in the body?"

Yes you brownshirted, goosestepping, jackbooted thug, we round them up and march all two and half million of them off to the gas chambers, for we all know what you mean by internment camps and deportations...wink,wink.

"an offense against morality and decency where long-established, hard-working residents who've bought property and raise children are concerned."

Apparently you aren't really all that concerned about morality and decency.

I mean hell, why stop there... if Hitler could round up six million Jews with index cards and typewriters, surely in this day and age with computers and databases we could round up 12 million mexicans.

"They are arriving here in increasing numbers and breeding like proverbial flies."

Yes, almost as bad as all those filthy papists, we should get rid of those too. But all in good time, right? I suppose eventually you'll move on to the blacks and then the Jews... then you can sit back and enjoy your lily white Christian paradise, that's if Christ will have anything to do with you, which is highly doubtful.

Or perhaps that is too extreme for you and we should just confine ourselves to persecuting muslims, at least for a start, then we can see how it goes, eh?

"while we poor Christians are expected to suffer slander and take endless libelous abuse "

Got news for you, it isn't slander or libel if it's true... and it's people like you talking about rounding people up and deporting them that give the left their ammunition. Silly me, when I wonder what Ducky hates so about religion. Your vision of Christianity isn't that far from Vlad the Impaler.

Honestly you and your fellow Know-Nothings are a greater threat to our freedom, society, and way of life than a few million muslims. You, who abandon all morality and decency as you pee down your leg in fear. I'd far rather have a Mosque as a neighbor than whatever obscenity that preaches your viewpoint is... Westboro perhaps?

"Jefferson and the other Founders were heavily influenced by several Enlightenment thinkers. If Rousseau was not among them, maybe he should have been."

Maybe you should try reading the founders and the enlightenment thinkers and perhaps liberate yourself from the medieval box you've confined yourself to.

Between the Muslims, the Illuminati, and the New World Order we haven't got a chance, right?

Offended? Well you sir I find are an offense against everthing this country stands for.

Just know this, when you come for them... I'll be the white guy on the steps with the gun.

An Phoblacht Abú ~ Up The Republic!

~Finntann~

beamish said...

I'd say Finntann couldn't have hit the head of that nail any harder.

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Silver,

Someone (lost count?) said you hit a nerve and I agree with that!

You asked at least several times about "banning" and that is what I will attempt to answer here.

I myself said nothing about banning as that would be un constitutional. My point goes to the question of 'acceptance' within the boundaries of the constitution.

In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Take the tiny Nation of San Marino which is situated (land-locked) in the Nation of Italy. Both are separate to and including laws and yet neither imposes theirs on the other.

The United States however is a Federation of 50 republics all bound by one Constitution and if "acceptance" is given to any one cults "by-laws" however sporadic that might be rips at the foundation of what we are.

I simply do not want to go down that path for if we do, God Himself may not be able to help.

98ZJUSMC said...

@~ FreeThinke

ummmm......

*gulp*

Wow....gonna have to pass on all that.

Always On Watch said...

Whether one agrees or disagrees with what FreeThinke has typed in, the following is absolutely true:

We're trying to play a nice civilized game of Golf, while they're playing Dungeons and Dragons -- with real swords.

One of those swords is political activism that gives Islam a pass when no other ism would get such a pass in our society.

The recent clash at Catholic University of America is a case in point. I'll be posting on that topic this week. The threatened litigation is absurd, but forces CUA of America to defend itself, indeed, its very existence. Any legal challenge costs money, and CUA will have to fork over money. Of course, that cost will be reflected in the next tuition hike. As if tuition isn't already high enough!

Silverfiddle said...

Jack Camwell a ways back in this thread mentioned that we should read Federalist # 10, so I did. It concerns factions. Here's the pertinent excerpt:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.

This doesn't quite satisfy, because Madison did not envision how we'd eventually come to be tyrannized by a mutated, ever metastasizing court system.

Finntann said...

There are lines we must not cross.

When you abandon your principles for convenience or even self-preservation, you are unprincipled.

When we talk of banning religions and rounding people up in internment camps we are done, we are no better than our enemies.

ecc102 said...

Kurt,

I shall be doing a specific blog post regarding your question to me about what I think the government should do about this issue.

See you then!

Anonymous said...

Well, now we know for sure. Finntann has revealed himself to be a liberal.

They always resort to personal attack when aroused -- and they are always aroused because they tend to be hyper-judgmental, censorious and always irritated about something.

Good show!

Younger people than I may think they are "conservative," but they've been so heavily influenced by the "effluvia" -- so conditioned by our depraved popular culture -- so brainwashed by the incessant drumbeat of the media -- that they've become quasi-leftists without even realizing it.

As I've said many times, the country has crept farther and farther to the left. Been doing so for over a hundred years. The pace has greatly accelerated in the past forty years. I've observed it with ever growing dismay.

It's no longer a question of whether one is liberal or conservative, but only of the degree of one's liberalism. There are no true Conservatives on the scene at all.

I'm in my eighth decade and will soon be gone. You may think, "Thank God for that" -- and so will I. The future looks so grim as to be unendurable. You're welcome to it. Good luck!

I'm sorry this became personal. I thought honesty was valued here. Alas! It never is -- whenever it departs from the convictions and pre-conceived notions of the powers that be.

~ FreeThinke

PS: Thank you, AOW, for giving my remarks some respectful attention. We don't have to agree on everything to remain civilized as you prove whenever you post. We of the Old School are a dying breed. I think Civiization is much the poorer for it. - FT

Fuzzy Slippers said...

[quote]Good luck getting Islam declared not a religion, but for those that keep coming back to this, I'll ask again...

How would your idea work, banning the religion of Islam? We need some details.

And kid, of course we have laws against cutting off hand, stoning someone and rape, etc. So what is your point?

Muslims are free to practice Sharia here so long as it does not violate our laws. So dietary restrictions are in, cutting off heads and stoning people are out. Pretty simple.

No one is suggesting codifying Sharia into US law or the constitution. [/quote]

Silverfiddle, I do understand the complexities, but the problem, of course, is that one of the tenets of Islam is global domination--by mass slaughter. How do we reconcile resisting this with our own "freedom of religion" clause? Well, here's the deal, the Constitution specifically disallows the STATE sponsoring a specific religion, so Islam cannot take hold here in its fullest sense (and yes, dear wonderful Kurt, it IS an all-encompassing ideology, masked by religion). Now all we have to do is protect our Constitution, a thing that becomes more difficult with each passing day.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

[quote]What Abrahamic religion isn't?

Fundamentalists have the complete package - Laissez-faire capitalism, limited governance and Old Testament mores.
Only a separation of church and state has saved us from this catastrophe although there are chinks in the wall. [/quote]

Ducky, true. But here's the thing, neither Jews nor Christians LITERALLY chop off limbs or claim an "eye for eye" (Sharia literally applies these, pouring acid on someone who pours acid on someone else, etc.). It's one thing to refuse to eat pork or work on Sunday and quite another to bury a woman up to her head in sand and then stone her to death (usually after she's been gang-raped). How and where do we draw the line? Is our Constitution enough? Our courts are already making allowances for "religious" tenets in cases of "honor killings" here in the U. S. That's the slippery slope of admitting Sharia into our court system. It's a progressive creep that will lead us to where Europe is: with Sharia/Islamic sectors that don't acknowledge or recognize the law of the land.

Silverfiddle said...

Hewing to the constitution, and reforming our court system to that frivolous lawsuits are not countenanced are key.

I've been thinking these last few day if the United States has ever banned any organization? I couldn't think of any.

We has the "American" Communist Party operating freely here at the height of the cold war. We have Aryan Nation and neonazi organization meeting, organizing and recruiting. We have outlaw motorcycle gangs here in town, and I saw a kid wearing a t shirt that said "Support Your Local Sons of Silence."

ecc102: I am looking forward to your blog post. As I said, I didn't write this to make people mad or pick a fight. If I don't show up and comment please e-mail me.

Finntann said...

"Well, now we know for sure. Finntann has revealed himself to be a liberal."

Yes FT, I'm a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian, and you have revealed yourself to be some kind of neo-nazi religious fascist.

You're the one talking about trashing the constitution, something to which I take great exception.

Yes, take an entire group of people, based on religion, and deport them.

Sounds like the position the Know-Nothings had about Catholics in the 1800's.

Was I angry? Yes, and it was a righteous anger. Having spent 25 years in the military defending this great country and constitution of ours I expect better of my fellow Americans, a feeling perhaps misplaced.

I appreciate your honesty, I hope you can appreciate mine, we both know exactly where each other stands on the issue of banning religion and deporting muslims.

I defend your right to air your views here, or even in the public square, I do however reserve the right to adamantly and vehemently oppose them.

I drew analogies between your viewpoints and the viewpoints of similar extreme historical political movements, perhaps in the hope you would realize how extreme your views in reality are.

Your extreme position and reaction are not warranted nor supported by fact. Between 1995 and 2006 the number of Americans killed by terrorism was 3147, most of those in the 9/11 attacks.

Meanwhile: 5171 died of electrocution, 8536 died in accidental gun discharge, 16,742 died from Hernias (yes, Hernias), 19,415 died from the flu, 38,302 drowned... well you get the point.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71743

As attrocious as 9/11 was, please, get some perspective.

Cheers!

Kid said...

So, Finntann... More people died form accidents and natural causes, than the 3000 who didn't die, but were murdered by Vermin on 9-11-2001, so No Big Deal? Is that your point?

Yes, I see you're talking to FT, but for clarity, I have never suggested deporting any muslims.

Finntann said...

Kid, the military term is proportionality.

I never said it was no big deal, it was a horrendous tragedy.

I was still in the military and flew into Boston on business on 9/10, someone I worked with was on Flight 11 and I was in his business office when we found out.

Our rental car was from Alamo at Logan Airport, rented the same day Atta rented his to drive to Portland Maine, for all I know the SOB was in line in front of me.

My sister lived in Manhattan and was on the subway going to Brooklyn at approximately the time the first plane hit, a subway that I understand passed underneath the WTC. She walked home from Brooklyn over the Brooklyn Bridge and up to the Upper East Side that evening. I was unable to get a hold of her until roughly 11:30 pm on 9/11.

A coworker and I drove back across country to our duty station since there were no planes flying. I can recall the eerie feeling of a sky with no contrails. We were somewhere in Indiana when they started again, and we saw people that had gathered at the end of the runway of a small airport waiving the American Flag and cheering.

I have willingly deployed in response to those attacks amongst others, and in fact the last seven years of my military career was spent in direct support of the Global War on Terror.

Somewhere in the middle of the country we met a woman at a gas station who asked if we were from Massachusetts after seeing the tags. We said no, and asked if she was from Colorado given hers. She had been stuck in Colorado, we in Boston... my friend made a joke about how we should just trade cars so each of them wound up where they belonged.

It was, I think the 14th... and that was the first time I laughed after 9/11.

I will never forget sitting in a conference room in New England when the front desk security at the company we were at came in when the first plane hit. We took a break and went out and looked at the news at their security desk... we all thought it was a small plane and while tragic went back to work.

Roughly 15 minutes later the security folks came back in and told us another plane had hit. In a mixed group of military and civilians you could have heard a pin drop.

We tried to get back to work, and roughly an hour later we found out that someone we worked with was on one of the flights. We didn't get much work done after that, spending more time at the security desk than in the conference room. Just after lunch we called it a day.

Some coworkers and I went back to our hotel, and then to a bar. I spent the rest of the afternoon sitting in a bar with a bunch of other shocked and incredulous Americans watching the news in a sports bar.

There, that's my 9/11 story. Don't think for a minute that I have ever considered it no big deal. I will never forget that day.

Think it bullshit? SF can vouch for me, we worked together back then. He knows me and he knows the guy I was travelling with.

1 Egyptian, 15 Saudis, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from the UAE killed 3000 Americans and the solution is to suspend the constitutional rights of 2.5 million Americans?

Two governments have fallen as direct and indirect results of those attacks, countless more have died on both sides.

Do we have a problem? Yes.

Do we solve it by punishing American citizens? In my opinion, No.

Restrict immigration, expel visa holders, restrict anyone with a passport stamp from any country supporting terrorism? Sure.

Abandon the constitution? Never.

Cheers!

Kid said...

Finntann, I can see your story is true. OK. Your comment I responded to then is just weird regards the last two paragraphs and the last sentence. I don't know how anyone would see it otherwise. At least how I read it at face value.

Regards your latest comment, I'm in total agreement. Fwiw. And I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. I actually didn't know anyone personally, but I anguish to this day thinking of all those men, women, and children forced into the jaws of evil that morning. The jumpers. The children on the planes crying and the Mothers trying hopelessly to console them. I'll leave it at that. I'll never feel any less about it.
It's why I jumped on your 'perspective' comment in relation to people who die from perfectly natural things all day long that none of us has any control over or who is responsible for.

Finntann said...

Kid, my response was particularly tailored to FT, who way way up above was advocating banning Islam and rounding up all the muslims for deportation, I also figure that there is an off chance FT will read it as well.

My comment was attempting, perhaps poorly to illustrate to FT proportion. 38,000 drowned yet no one is screaming for the banning of swimming pools and bathtubs. You have a much higher chance of being killed in the commission of a civil crime than an act of terrorism, but that's okay... no one is advocating abandoning civil liberties to solve that problem.

Admittedly, there are aspects of Islam that are seriously screwed up, but that's no reason to abandon the constitution or our principles.

25 years in the military makes me kind of touchy when it comes to the constitution. Despite what some of our more left wing brethren may cry about wars for oil and haliburton and the military industrial complex, the majority of those in the field defending us are fighting for principle.

When someone safe at home advocates abandoning it all for a little safety it kind of touches a nerve. There is a Vietnam era protest song by Country Joe and the Fish called the Fixin to Die Rag and it starts...

Its one, two, three
What are we fightin for?


Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Finntann,

I think we need to agree to disagree and let it go at that. You don't know me, and I assure you I am not any of the things you want to think I am. I entertain opinions and theories with which you don't agree. That's all.

I have never resorted to calling you "names." Why you should feel it's appropriate to do so to me I can't imagine. We don't have to be especially fond of each other, but we ought to show each other respect.

I don't "do" barroom brawls.

If you had read everything I wrote without prejudice and with full comprehension, instead of picking out the phrases that irritated and outraged you most, you might have responded with less vituperation and more understanding.

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

I'm certainly not going to go over it all again. All I can say is that there have been numerous times when the Constitution was circumvented or suspended by leaders in the past who with the exception of Woodrow Wilson are admired -- even revered -- today. You know perfectly well what they are, I'm sure.

In my opinion you rely too much on statistics, and too much on facts per se without seeming to realize there is more to getting at the truth than dry recitations of recorded data. Isolated facts, which I view as fragments of a huge, complex mosaic, are significant only in context and always subject to interpretation. Statistics can be manipulated to support varying interpretations and even opposing agendas. I'm sure you remember what Mark Twain said about them?

As for "proportionality" in the matter of 911, I'm reminded once again of John Donne, who was recently quoted on these pages. "If a piece of the continent is washed away, Europe is the less ..."

I am morally certain that if the Islamaniacs had been in possession of nuclear weapons on 911, all of New York and its environs would have been reduced to smoking rubble in the twinkling of an eye.

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

You are fond of principles. So am I. The principle of our territorial integrity was violated on 911. It should not matter whether three-thousand were killed or three-million -- whether three buildings were destroyed or an entire city.

The people who perpetrated this were not "criminals," they were terrorists. They did not act alone, rather they were symptomatic of an evil mentality that --according to statistics I have bumped into in the past ten years -- is shared by approximately TWO-HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION of the one-and-a-quarter billion Muslims who walk the earth. According to everything I have read by supposedly qualified experts like Kenneth Timmerman, Michael Ladeen, and others, the majority of Muslims who have emigrated to the West are members of the Wahabbi sect -- the most aggressive, the most ruthless, the most murderous and the most cunning of all the variants of Islam.

You will insist, of course that Islam is a religion and therefore deserves Constitutional protection as such no matter how odious its doctrines.

Many people on this thread and elsewhere agree with much that I have said, and realize it is not a "religion" so much as an aggressive political movement that means to wrest control of this and every other country it inhabits away from the hands of its traditional owners and operators -- just as we did with the Indians.

The Islamists consider the tactical practice of deceit to be a positive virtue in gaining their objectives in every transaction, however great or small. they call it TAKEEYA.

Many Muslims in our midst may seem friendly and seem to have assimilated fully to the American Way of Life. In truth, I am certain many-if-not-most of them are part of a fanatical worldwide movement they call "Jihad" that has in effect planted hostile foreign colonies in our midst and all over Europe and South America as well.

The "Victory Mosque" planned for a site perilously near "Ground Zero" ought to tell every American that we are, indeed, under attack and have much to fear. To think otherwise may be "nice," but it's opaque and incredibly naive.

Your narrow, legalistic, self-satisfied interpretation of our Constitution is very much akin to the thinking of those liberals who insist that terrorists should be treated as criminals and tried on a case-by-case basis -- as though they were mere bank robbers or second-storey men. That same line of thinking subscribes to the absurdity of reading combatants their "Miranda Rights" on a battlefield. -- The same line of thinking that has made it illegal in Great Britain to use deadly force in defending oneself during a break-in where your life is threatened or your wife or daughter is threatened with rape or other forms of grievous bodily harm.

My father often quoted, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

I have never advocated killing or physically harming anyone not caught red-handed in the midst of an act of violence, nor would I. Nevertheless, I firmly believe in treating the most likely suspects in any threatening situation as "persons of interest" at least and definite suspects in most instances. So yes I do believe in outright DISCRIMINATION against groups known to be plotting our demise, and against obviously troublesome, violence-prone, seditious organization such as MOVE, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and known member so of the Mafia.

The application of common sense is always warranted.

Discrimination may be unkind, but it's not the equivalent of "persecution." In fact discrimination on a hundred different levels is as American as cherry pie. Our history has been fraught discrimination since before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

~ FreeThinke

(CONTINUED)

Anonymous said...

Since you are such a stickler for literalism, Finntann, I’ll thank you in future not to misquote or mischaracterize my remarks. Here is exactly what I said above in the context of a more complex statement:


”If we had clamped down on Muslims, and started internment and mass deportation proceedings on 9/12/01, instead of mollycoddling the filthy bastards, we'd be better off today. It's our spineless determination to play "fair" with sworn enemies who haven't the slightest intention of EVER playing fair with US -- and who have said OUT LOUD they are determined to KILL us -- that has destroyed our credibility and prestige abroad. 



“Our electing a president from a Commie-Muslim background whose middle name is HUSSEIN, for Christ's sake, was really the last straw.



“We're trying to play a nice civilized game of Golf, while they're playing Dungeons and Dragons -- with real swords.”



I said, “IF.” That makes it theoretical, though I’m not ashamed to admit it was the first thought that occurred to me as soon as we knew who and what had caused 911. I was in Baltimore awaiting corneal transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins that very day, and I can tell you I was not alone in my sentiments then, nor am I now.

At the same time I realize that nothing of he kind will ever happen, because we’ve been so heavily “liberalized” since the days of Pearl Harbor that we no longer feel it “appropriate” to defend ourselves with sufficient force, and have lost the will to demand total and unconditional surrender from our enemies at home and abroad.

Liberals have convinced us we have no “right” to feel that way.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

~ Thoreau (1817-1862)

You called me an extremist. I proudly plead guilty to that, for I firmly believe what Lord Acton told us:

“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”

Regards,

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

I've been reading this discussion.

Deporting or jailing seditionists and traitors IS Constitutional.

Controlling immigration IS Constitutional.

Why do we let Wahhabists in, many of whom are now imams and teachers at mosques here in America? Why, why, why? I personally know one Muslim "revived" at a local Wahhabist-led mosque. He had been secularized and Americanized for decades, but a few weeks at the mosque changed him like you wouldn't believe.

Islam is a geopolitical ideology, not merely a religion, particularly in its fundamentalist manifestations.

Another 9/11 may not occur, you know. Muslims are making so many inroads socially and politically that they don't "need" another 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Thank you once again, AOW.

If we are, indeed, "done in," it will not happen because of nuclear attack or invading armies, but because of our own weakness and a tragically flawed understanding of reality generated and nourished by the ceaseless flow of anti-American propaganda that passes for "enlightened thinking" in which we are bathed every day. We are literally drowning in misconceptions and misperceptions.

Ideological conviction, itself, seems to be the most powerful force on earth next to the need for food, sex, shelter and clothing.

Monomania -- which I, personally, define as slavish devotion and fanatical adherence to a particular point of view that excludes consideration of all others -- is essentially mindless. It substitutes passion for thought as it cuts off connection to any capacity one might have to interpret and analyze phenomena with any sense of broad perspective.

Whenever we allow ourselves to substitute dogma for thought and let rage or anxiety obliterate concern for the ramifications of what we advocate, we are retreating back towards our aboriginal, animalistic condition.

That we sometimes need to resort to violence and cruel, unfair practices in order to defeat those determined to rob us of what we have and possibly destroy us altogether is one of the Great Paradoxes of Existence.

God alone knows why innocent people must suffer. Every life is precious, but until all impulses towards aggression and oppression are bred out of the race, violent conflict seems inevitable -- unless we train ourselves to capitulate to whomever has the loudest voice, the strongest arm and the biggest gun, and willingly submit to eternal servitude.

Unfortunately, that process of indoctrinating ourselves towards fervent belief in the wisdom of eternal, unconditional surrender seems to have been well underway since before you and I were born.

The term "Prison Planet" so derided by scholars and self-styled experts may not be so far from the truth after all.

The horrifying predictions of Forster, Huxley, Orwell and Atwood are proving themselves to be chillingly accurate.

Why?

Because we grown to prize safety, comfort and pleasure above freedom. It's part of a cycle well described by Alexander Tyler. Humanity lives in patterns that are doomed intrinsically. So far no civilization has ever been able to break the cycle and avoid the process of Decline and Fall.

Only Jesus has given us a way out, and we must find Him and follow Him as individuals. There is no such thing as Collective Salvation, I'm afraid.

He who thinks he's always right
Lives in realms of Endless Night.

He who has humility
Is sure to find tranquility.


Best regards,

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@AOW:

Deporting or jailing seditionists and traitors IS Constitutional.

Controlling immigration IS Constitutional.

Why do we let Wahhabists in, many of whom are now imams and teachers at mosques here in America? Why, why, why? I personally know one Muslim "revived" at a local Wahhabist-led mosque. He had been secularized and Americanized for decades, but a few weeks at the mosque changed him like you wouldn't believe.


Yes! Our immigration policy, especially since 9/11 has bordered on suicidal. 20 million Mexicans and Guatemalans are nothing. History shows they (or their progeny) will assimilate. Islam not so much.

Anonymous said...

"Yes! Our immigration policy, especially since 9/11 has bordered on suicidal. 20 million Mexicans and Guatemalans are nothing. History shows they (or their progeny) will assimilate. Islam not so much."

YES! YES! YES! At last I can say, HURRAH!

So the next question should be this:

If strict adherence to the Constitution (as you read it) requires us to adopt a suicidal policy, isn't it about time we amended the Constitution to preclude that possibility?

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@ FreeThinke: If strict adherence to the Constitution (as you read it) requires us to adopt a suicidal policy...

I said no such thing.

You've only been coming here for a few months, so I will give you some links where I put forth my solution, which is no more Muslim immigrants. It is legal and constitutional. There are no directives forcing us to allow anyone to immigrate.

http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2009/09/muslim-immigration-invitation-to-murder.html

http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2010/05/all-immigrants-are-not-equal.html

http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2010/11/angry-islam-incompatible-with-european.html

http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2010/09/islam-is-incompatible-with-classical.html

I cherish the last one because I feature author Abigail Esman, and she stopped by and posted a comment.

Anonymous said...

My friend, I didn't want to distort your meaning -- only to ask a question based on what-I-saw-as a logical conclusion that could be drawn from your remark.

Words are such poor tools! No matter how carefully we use them it's always much too easy to misunderstand one another.

By the way my position on internment and deportation has always been that it should apply to Muslims who are citizens of other countries, and that we should have put an immediate stop to entrance into this country by Muslims for any purpose whatsoever immediately after 911. I should have said that when I introduced the subject above.

I do think, however, that participation in Islamic Jihad on even the minutest level and open sympathy for it should be officially regarded as an act of treason. If it were up to me, I would give offenders a clear choice among three alternatives 1. Death, 2. Life imprisonment without hope of parole, 3. Deportation to an Islamic Republic of their choice.

I believe that sedition, treason, and Draconian forms of aggression should be met with equally Draconian forms of resistance and punishment.

Maybe those who would claim to renounce their evil heritage should be put under house arrest for two years and then placed on strictly supervised probation for the next ten. That's as kind as I could let myself be to those kinds of people.

~ FT

PS: Thanks for the links. - FT

MK said...

"So the duty of a constitutional conservative or libertarian is to stand for the right of Muslims to practice their faith so long as it is done within the bounds of our constitution."

I won't stand in defense of them because i know very well that they wouldn't give a flying f*** about me and my faith here in the west or where they come from. Besides, muslims have their liberal lapdogs to do their dirty work for them.

Silverfiddle said...

MK: Here in America, statists of all parties, but especially progressives, are trampling the constitution.

It's about standing up for the constitution.

dmarks said...

A ban on Islamic terrorist law is entirely in keeping with the Constitution, and strengthens it. Such law has no place in this nation.

dmarks said...

Silver said: "MK: Here in America, statists of all parties, but especially progressives, are trampling the constitution."

This is quite evident in the STRONG position from the left in opposition to the free speech part of "Citizens United".

They argue passionately that it is OK to censor individuals who attempt to criticize those in power, if these individuals are associated with organizations that they, the leftists, really really hate.

I've even seen the argument from leftists that free speech is a right only reserved by government-approved press organizations, and not by anyone else.

Sounds like Cuba. If its not in the "Granma" newspaper, it is illegal.