Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Religion or Culture?

I have little patience for people who sing from the catalog of Christianity's sins but brook no criticism of Islam.  When defending Islam, their favorite argument is that it's not the religion, its the culture

Sir Charles, OM, QC, OFM, Knight of the Queen's Girdle and all that, (Peace Be upon Him), charges to the rescue any time someone casts aspersions upon the Religion of Peace. (See this thread at Leticia's)

He and fellow Defenders of the Faith have excuses from now to doomsday explaining away the horrors that Islam has spawned:

It's not the religion but the national culture...
... religious conservatism...
... women like being swaddled head to toe when it's 120 degrees outside...
... and they don't like driving anyway...
... but it's only a small stick ....

OK, I added the last three, but I have heard variations of them at other forums...

The Christmas day killing in Texas where a man gunned down his entire family as they were gathered around the Christmas tree spurred my fellow Right Blogistanis to yet another gang attack on Islam, but it actually caused me to back up and reconsider. Mr. Yazdanpanah was obviously mentally distraught and emotionally anguished due to bankruptcy, family problems and a marriage breakup.

The Yazdanpanah's were not Muslim Fundamentalists

This is a man who reportedly enjoyed happy hour cocktails with men and women after work.  Look at family pictures and how the women dress.  This is not a fundamentalist family.  They were celebrating Christmas (albeit secularly), with a Christmas tree for Pete's sake!  Religion probably did not motivate him.  But did his native culture?  And what shaped that culture?  He's Iranian, so I'm waiting for an apologist to suggest Zoroastrianism...

Every time a Muslim man decapitates someone or kills his (always female) family members, a "Religion vs. Culture" argument breaks out. It's a silly argument over a false choice. Religion and Culture, you can't have one without the other. Cultures are informed by their dominant religions, and a religion accepts what is not objectionable from the surrounding culture. 

Grand Ayatollah Imam Shirazi explains it better than I ever could:
So in the case of Islamic religion and its followers, Islam does influence the culture, but culture does not generate the religion; for all the teachings of Islam are generated or inspired by none other than the divine entity. Inherently every aspect of the teachings of Islam is based on a reason and wisdom for the good of mankind - [whether or not the reason happens to be known to him.]
On the other hand if a practice or a particular aspect of culture does not contradict the system that is brought for the good of mankind, i.e. it does not contradict the teachings of Islam, or it is good for mankind, then it is accepted or endorsed by the Islamic religion, since anything which is considered good or is not considered harmful for mankind is declared permissible and therefore accepted and endorsed by Islam. And this is the kind of relationship Islam harbours for faith and culture. (Imam Shirazi)
So why are some practices absolutely prohibited (drinking), while female genital mutilation is AOK?  These are religious judgement passed on cultural practices.

Ducky, Jack and other ably proffer evidence to bolster the "culture, not religion" argument. Places like the United Arab Emirates, though ruled by Sharia, are relatively free from stonings and head chopping. The Emirates are very rich, and they bribe jihadis to leave them alone, and they deal harshly with public fundamentalist outbursts. Ducky has pointed out that various religions in Africa perform female genital mutilation, and the practice pre-dates Islam.

So, we have some evidence that prosperity tamps down a religion's most repugnant rituals, and we find that some practices are shared among various religions.  Neither observation answers the culture or religion question definitively, and that's because the two are inextricably entwined.

All I can offer in response is a different attempt at disaggregation.  What about those non-Muslims living in Muslim-dominated cultures?

* Number of bombings carried out by Christians compared to Muslim-inspired explosions.  A quick glance at the news or some googling will reveal Islam beating Christianity 10-1, or greater.

* Since Pakistan is proud home to over 600 honor killings annually, I'd like to see the Christian/Muslim breakdown of the statistics.  Again, some googling will reveal it is approximately, oh... 100% Muslim and 0% Christian, unless it is a Christian who is on the receiving end of an angry wielder of the Flaming Sword of God.

An additional comparison that would be interesting would be the annual number of per capita Old Testament-style punishments meted out in Israel over the past decade compared to surrounding countries.

So is it really the culture?  

Even an intellectually dishonest redefinition of honor killing (carried out by apologist feminists, no less), cannot snatch first prize in body count from Islam's bloody grasp.  They still outnumber even Catholic Latin American husbands who kill their wives in a fit of jealous rage.

So, I don't condemn Islam or its practitioners; I simply view it with eyes wide open. I appreciate the contribution my fellow Americans of the Islamic faith make to this nation in the fields of industry, medicine, the arts, and defense. I thank God we are spared the darker aspects of their faith here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Maybe culture and national character have something to do with it after all...

Daily Mail
WFAA.com
PEW Survey - Muslim Attitudes
Imam Shirazi - Teachings of Islam

46 comments:

jez said...

The western world (America may be anomalous) is predominantly secular, not religious. Most prosperous countries have practices which they consider unacceptable but which purely religious argument could permit or encourage. For example, even Christians would balk at the idea of putting homosexuals to death, or beating children with a stick, even though these are biblically mandated. We are clearly starting to submit to standards other than those based on traditional religious dogma.

Several countries have mixed religious demographics or significant minority religions. When this happens, I suppose there must be conflict, compromise (hard to imagine), or the nation must be, like the West, primarily secular.
You claim that a christian nation is protected from practices such as FGM. How prevalent does christianity have to be for this effect to kick in? Eg. the Republic of Congo is 50% Christian and still has it; Ethiopia is 35-40% Christian and is one of the most prominent offenders.

There is, certainly an advantage that the West enjoys above Africa and the middle East. My feeling is that you have identified the benefits of secularism over theocracy, not christianity over islam. Prior to secularism, there was no shortage of unjust killing etc. happening in christian nations eg. witch burning. I've seen it argued (not by you) that these were not the fault of the church, but this is the same religion vs culture argument that you dispose of here, isn't it?

Silverfiddle said...

I don't claim that Christian nations are protected from FGM. I do say that just because it can be found in more than one culture does not exonerate anyone who does it.

My feeling is that you have identified the benefits of secularism over theocracy, not christianity over islam.

Excellent point. I had not thought of it like that. Going back though, couldn't that itself be another important distinction between Christianity and Islam? Acceptance of secularism?

Always On Watch said...

Damn. I have to work today.

No doubt that this thread will light up Duck's board.

Back later.

Bunkerville said...

When the angry hordes decend on Gibralter, Sir Charles may have a much different take on this issue than he has now.

Jack Camwell said...

The guy that offed his family is no different than, say, an American woman, born and raised in America, probably Christian, who drowns her three children. This particular mother I'm speaking of was reported to have chased her two year old son throughout her house in order to drown him in the bath tub. There's a big difference (psychologically) between someone who comes unhinged and someone who follows a cultural norm.

For example, some cultures think it's completely abhorrent and immoral for you to drink alcohol. You, however, think nothing of it because you've been socialized to be okay with consuming alcohol. Culture is an extremely tough thing to break.

How many beheadings, stonings, and "honor killings," occur in prosperous countries in which the masses live a relatively comfortable life style? How many prosperous countries are theocracies?

Yes, Silver, it's a cultural thing. That doesn't make it right, of course, but it's more true than just saying "oh, Islam is the problem." No, Islam is not the problem, medieval cultures in the 21st century are the problem. Christian nations 400 years ago were not that different from some of the Muslim nations now. There were just as many beheadings, stonings, and torture in the name of God and the law in Britain for a long, long time.

When the masses are kept illiterate and ignorant, and they're stuck under the thumb of totalitarian rule for hundreds of years, it's no wonder that Muslims in those countries still behave like they're in the Middle Ages, and Mulsims living in Western cultures are generally more peaceful.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: I appreciate your argument, but it is telling that people who take the opposing view, as you have invariable mention the Christian mother drowning her children in a bathtub. There are so few Christian analogs to the myriad Muslim acts of horror that the same Christian examples must be used over and over.

It is also worth noting that, those defending Islam from criticism also routinely cite Christianity from 400 years ago. So you are admitting that Islam is at least 400 years behind Christendom.

I also think your comments tend to support the contention that culture and religion are inextricably linked.

jez said...

"another important distinction between Christianity and Islam? Acceptance of secularism?"

Yes, it probably is. I don't think Christianity would be nearly so cuddly had the reformation not happened -- Catholics I've met often tend to be more reluctant to cede cultural ground to anyone or anything else.
I don't know enough about the equivalent church structures in Islam.

Jersey McJones said...

Man, you righties sure have a hard on for Islam.

Do you need to bash other people to make yourselves feel good? Is that what it is? You need to feel "better" than others?

Religion is a part of culture. They are not mutually exclusive factors. But there is much more to culture than just religion, and for you, Silver, to argue other wise with the words of a friggin' Grand Ayatollah is just silly. Of course he thinks his religion is the dominate feature of his culture! Why not ask the fuckin' Pope if Christianity is a prime cultural motivator?

Besides, the proof is obvious for anyone who actually has their "eyes wide open" - the more secular and liberal the society, the less backwards the culture, and the religion. Just look around you, for Christ's sake!

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Man, you righties sure have a hard on for Islam.

Do you need to bash other people to make yourselves feel good? Is that what it is? You need to feel "better" than others?

Religion is a part of culture. They are not mutually exclusive factors. But there is much more to culture than just religion, and for you, Silver, to argue other wise with the words of a friggin' Grand Ayatollah is just silly. Of course he thinks his religion is the dominate feature of his culture! Why not ask the fuckin' Pope if Christianity is a prime cultural motivator?

Besides, the proof is obvious for anyone who actually has their "eyes wide open" - the more secular and liberal the society, the less backwards the culture, and the religion. Just look around you, for Christ's sake!

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: Religion is a part of culture. They are not mutually exclusive factors.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Silverfiddle said...

And Jersey, I agree with the Imam. I used his quote to point our that religion and culture are intertwined.

Despite what you may suppose, I greatly respect this man's scholarship. I may not agree with his religion, but his philosophy is coherent and is based upon well-documented scholarship and religious code and tradition.

Ducky's here said...

No Silverfiddle, I don't "defend Islam" so much as I condemn ALL fundamentalists.

They must either be contained or destroyed if cultures are to progress.

The issue is bringing a progressive force to a culture. That's what has saved America from religiously insane Protestant freaks who desire a theocracy.

Contained or destroyed.

Jack Camwell said...

Silver,
I'm definitely not defending anything that the radical fundamentalist wackoes do. What I am defending, however, are peaceful Muslims allover the planet who get a bad rap for the things that the extremists do.

I wouldn't say that Islam is behind the times, because it's not. The middle eastern theocracies are behind the times, and they use an incredibly vile interpretation of Islam to keep it that way.

Take the Ahmish for example. They choose to be behind the times, but they've chosen a peaceful interpretation of Christianity. Believe it or not, Jesus didn't abrogate everything from the Old Testament, and there's plenty of writings from Paul that people have used to fuel Chritian zealotry.

Religion and culture are linked, but not necessarily in the way that you're trying to connect them. Christianity can have the same effect on a society if strictly and fundamentally interpreted. Look at Massachusetts in the 17th Century. The settlements there were theocracies. Hell, they even burned women because they believed them to be Satanic witches, and this was after the Rennaissance.

Western culture embraced the Rennaissance, which was a largely secular movement (yes, the Northern Renaissance was very religious, but the overall end-result was secularization of society). After 1500, there was a big movement to ignore religion and focus more on humanity. Much of the Middle East ignored that.

Ducky's here said...

Look at Massachusetts in the 17th Century.

---------
Then again look at it in the 18th.

Emerson, Unitarianism, Philips Brooks.

Thoreau and the artist colonies in the Berkshires.

Nothing like breaking down fundamentalism to get things moving.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: What I am defending, however, are peaceful Muslims allover the planet who get a bad rap for the things that the extremists do.

With you there. Nowhere do I give peaceful Muslims a bad rap.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky:

Amen! Now if we could just save ourselves from the Progressive statist zealots attempting to baptize us all in the consolatum of government-sponsored socialism and forcing us to prostrate ourselves at the alter of Big Government (peace be upon it), the bigger and grander the better!

Yes, God save us from the fundamentalists...

Ducky's here said...

Silver, I'm surprised the Wiki article eaves out the Mediterranean honor cultures which still exist in Greece, Italy and Spain.

Spain only recently started seriously tackling spousal abuse.

Times change. Dowry killings are becoming less common in India.

Most Israelis don't throw stones at women wearing short sleeves but the fundamentalist freaks still do.

It moves slowly but just as Massachusetts freed itself from the Puritans we will progress. Freedom will prevail even as the Abrahamic religions continue to try to constrain sexuality, artistic expression and most everything that makes us human.

Jersey McJones said...

A problem with religion is that it is for the most part static, but in a changing universe. So, religion tends to be a drag on culture as culturally naturally evolves while religion stays the same. When, for instance, religious people talk about "truth," they are referring to the static and dogmatic positions of their religious beliefs. So, as reality changes around them, it is sometimes very difficult for religious people to to adapt to it.

Here, Islam is particularly problematic. The Quran is a very sparsely and directly worded text. there's not a lot of room to adapt to change. The New Testament on the other hand, taking Paul aside, is more interpretative and vague and hence more adaptable to change.

When people remind you that culture is more of a factor in some the relatively abhorrent practices of some peoples, it is important to recall that these cultures created their religions (unless you really believe in divine intercession). The cultures of the Middle East haven't really changed all that much since the days of Mohammed. Really, that part of the world was suddenly thrust into modernity only over the past century or so, after a long period of decline. And so it becomes difficult to see the line of separation between what is Islam and what is just culture, as Islam is still more just a projection of Middle Eastern culture than is Judaism or Christianity, now far removed from their Eastern roots.

Few Christians or Jews still practice their religion as they did 2,000 years ago, but many Muslims, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, still practice pretty much the way they always did, while Muslims in the Pacific and other places practice it much differently, as they are literally far removed from the religion's roots.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this whole right wing attack on Islam is pointless. It doesn't matter what role Islam plays in people's lives because religion is virtually static, while culture is fluid and changing. Attacking a person's religion accomplishes nothing but to cause reactionary response.

It's a bad, counter-productive idea. If we want to change their culture, then we trade with them, we open them up, and we respect them. That will bring change. Assailing their religion will only further entrench them.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

I think Jersey made some pretty good points.

I really think it has to do with how wealthy the culture is.

For example, in Dubai, you've never seen so many "bad Muslims" in your life until you see them all kicking back beers, in full Arab garb mind you, at the bars and what not.

I think a culture in which its citizens have more ready access to the "excesses" of wealth and comfort is more lenient on its people. Could you imagine what would happen today if Prohibition came back? We'd probably see some OWS stuff x100. People would likely turn violent pretty quickly. So even if you think your religion forbids it, you'd be willing to let it slide in order to keep your head.

Leticia said...

You are going to find a few bad apples in every religion, no one is perfect, except for Jesus Christ.

I oppose Islam and Sharia Law, because I find it to be degrading to women, they are brutalized, tortured and sometimes murdered and it is all acceptable to some who practice and follow the laws of Islam. They have zero tolerance for any other religion. I have read enough of the Quran to know this. We are considered "infidels." And I will condemn the practices that condone beheading and teaching their children to hate. I abhor the fact that many of these people accept honor killings.

These are the lunatic radicals who take it too far. And their numbers are great.

I used to work for Muslims and they were very aware of my Christian faith and we got along perfectly, each respecting the other. These are the kind of people that get a bad rap from radical Muslims.

I even went to visit my boss at his house and had some very, very, very spicy hamburgers! They all laughed at me because they thought they had prepared them mild, nope. LOL!

Like I said, in every religion and also society you will have those that are just plain nutty, crazy and let's face it, psychotic.

Ducky's here said...

You know, Silver, it would be helpful to know just how many of these killings take place in the West.

Sources in Canada put it at fewer than one a year.

Wikipedia only lists four in the U.S. and one of those was a man killing his estranged wife, something Americans have been known to do.

So just how do we get at the truth when every incident is sensationalized.

98ZJUSMC said...

When it comes to killings and murder, no one comes close to the secular Left.

50-60 million murdered, in the US alone, since Roe v. Wade.

Hilter, Stalin, Islam, Christianity, Pol Pot, Jack the Ripper, Jeffery Dahlmer and John Gacy are all pikers by comparison.

I doff my, rather tattered, MarPatt Camo chapeau to the enlightened, moralistic and charitable Left.

You da Man.

Silverfiddle said...

Marine! Touche'

Ducky: I am not sensationalizing, and if you didn't notice, I did not use the Christmas Day killing to scream "Honor Killing!" My point was not even to slam Islam, though I do think some disaggregation of the data and some comparisons that I mentioned reveal points for both sides.

This was simply my positing that religion and culture are inseparable. It's almost axiomatic.

Jersey McJones said...

My good Marine, if you think abortion started the day RvW passed, or that the American "Left" is somehow akin to Pol Pot and Hitler, not only are you dangerously insane, but you live under a ridiculously sheltering rock. Come on outside, man! There's a whole world out there! Just please don't shoot us all!

JMJ

Finntann said...

Just to play the devil's advocate.

Outside of a religious context, what is the difference between a law that states a woman must cover her face in public and one that states a woman must cover her breasts in public?

I'm not sure why we are discussing either Yazdanpanah or Yates as neither appear to be related to the topic at hand and are not directly related to either religion or culture. I don't think that conjecture by a family friend, "she believed Yazdanpanah was upset because his wife 'was doing good on her own", is sufficient to define motive.

The key difference between Christianity and Islam today is that Christianity doesn't attempt to define a rule-set for other than its adherents, except as legacy Judeo-Christian morals codified in civil law. Any submission to Christian legal precepts is entirely voluntary.

Personally I have no objection to self-submittal to Sharia with the clear understanding that civil trumps religious law. Meaning that when a party submits to a sharia court it is with the clear understanding that if he/she doesn't like the outcome there is still recourse to the civil system.

No one seems to object or have any issues whatsoever with a Catholic submitting themself to a Canon Court in the determination of a marriage's validity prior to divorce or remarriage within the church. Of course, the Canon determination is completely irrelevant as far as a legal divorce goes.

Cheers!

Ducky's here said...

Rios Montt, a devout evangelical Christian was very recently indicted for genocide in Guatemala.

This piece of filth ordered the murder of a quarter million people.

Are we to draw conclusions from his religion?

Silverfiddle said...

A despicable human being (I am familiar with his bloody history), but he pales in comparison to the rogue's gallery on the left, or Jordan's slaughter of their Palestinian "brothers," or Turkeys genocide of the Armenians...

Nothing in Christ's teachings could be interpreted to greenlight slaughter, and outside some instances in Central Africa, it's hard to find examples of Christian preachers exhorting mass murder.

Jersey McJones said...

Really, Silver? Do you recall the Holocaust? Or would you ascribe that to secular consequence?

You righties have the audacity to pin the murder of millions of different people to "socialism." There is nothing about socialism that dictates such monstrosities, any more or less than capitalism would dictate such a thing.

For shame.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Yes Jersey. I chalk up the holocaust to secular consequences, like the historians do.

Hitler was a National Socialist atheist, who made worship of the state the official religion. Mussolini was a man of the left, a well-know socialist writer and thinker before he took over Italy.

The shame is that socialism and communism have murdered over 100 million people. Mao alone is credited with anywhere from 50 to 80 million.

I don't know if socialist doctrine dictates monstrosities or not, but it sure has created some mighty spectacular ones.

Finntann said...

Those who ignore history, like Jersey, are doomed to repeat it.

Every attempted application of socialist and communist principles of government has ended in failure, the main characteristic being the further they went, the worse the failure.

Need I point out to Ducky that one of the organizations exposing Montt was the Roman Catholic Church through the Interdiocese Project for the Recovery of Historical Memory (REMHI).

Cheers!

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "You righties have the audacity to pin the murder of millions of different people to socialism."

In mid 20thh century Germany, this was part and parcel of national socialist ideology.

"There is nothing about socialism that dictates such monstrosities, any more or less than capitalism would dictate such a thing."

There is actually, The soclalist ideology lends itself to this. The vast majority of the worst mass murdering leaders are socialist.

What do you expect? Socialism reverses centuries of progress to protect the rights of the people.

jez said...

"Outside of a religious context, what is the difference between a law that states a woman must cover her face in public and one that states a woman must cover her breasts in public?"

Well, one difference is that the face is a primary organ of communication. One of the challenges in communicating like this is that we can't see each other's facial expressions.

The face is also the absolute primary means of identification. If I want to buy petrol for my motorbike, I have to remove my helmet and make myself identifiable otherwise the fella in the shop will press a panic button. This seems quite practical to me.

I'm not sure that breasts are either so communicative nor individually distinctive. I'm not convinced that I could reliably pick out even my closest female friends from a lineup of breasts, although it seems like an intriguing experiment that I'd be happy to participate in. I'm also willing, under laboratory conditions, to attempt to determine ladies' moods or rhetorical intent from their breasts and cleavage.

While I do think that a visible face is more useful (arguably vital) than visible breasts, I do think we're a bit weird about breasts in the West. Other cultures, even nearby ones like France and Spain, are less suppressed / oppressed. Maybe they're happier, a tiny bit. But the face is vastly more important.

Always On Watch said...

Finntann said:

Personally I have no objection to self-submittal to Sharia with the clear understanding that civil trumps religious law. Meaning that when a party submits to a sharia court it is with the clear understanding that if he/she doesn't like the outcome there is still recourse to the civil system.

Exactly.

Do Western Muslims as a whole support that?

Clearly, some do.

But Muslims can indeed live for many years in the West and go hardline when they see their daughters becoming too "Westernized." And we cannot escape the fact that these hardline Muslims do themselves see their actions as religious in nature -- not just as cultural manifestations.

It is the West that keeps insisting that we can separate culture from religion. It is a fact that devoutness to a faith does affect how one acts on a daily basis. In-name-only adherents to any faith save their devoutness for worship only; such in-name-only adherents outnumber the "truly devout."

Ducky's here said...

Need I point out to Ducky that one of the organizations exposing Montt was the Roman Catholic Church through the Interdiocese Project for the Recovery of Historical Memory (REMHI).
---------

Need I point out the right's reaction to liberation theology?

Was it Saint Ronnie Raygun or honest liberals Tip O'Neill and Joe Moakley(D - My old neighborhood) who brought down D'Aubisson (Raygun loved his ass) for murdering priests and nuns?

Ducky's here said...

Those who ignore history, like Jersey, are doomed to repeat it.

-------

Instead of the pithy aphorisms maybe you and dmarks can explain why the first mass internment in the extermination camps were socialists and communists.

Ducky's here said...

AOw, we have Judaic courts in the U.S. which are used on the agreement of both parties to rule on cases in accordance with Judaic law which is very similar to Sharia.

These are non criminal cases and all involved prefer them to civil court.

Do you support these courts?

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I can't say that I know much about those Judaic courts.

If those Judaic courts trump the rule of civil law, I do not support those courts.

In Catholicism, one can get an annulment from the church (often so as to remarry in the church), but still is required to get a civil divorce as marriage is both religious and civil. I'm guessing that Judaic courts are along the same lines. I'm sure that you'll come along with details if I'm wrong.

Silverfiddle said...

maybe you and dmarks can explain why the first mass internment in the extermination camps were socialists and communists.

That's an easy one. They were Soviet sympathizers challenging Hitler's German-specific nationalist socialism.

Finntann said...

Deeper than I would have gone SF... I was simply going to say "to eliminate the competition".

Cheers!

Z said...

AOW, the Catholic example is an absolutely perfect one. Good job.

Ducky's here said...

Interesting idea, Silverfiddle but Hitler never showed much interest in left wing movements.

The only socialists in the Nazi party were purged during the Night of the Long Knives.

I don't see advocacy for worker ownership as a cornerstone of Nazi policy.

Ducky's here said...

AOW, the rabbinical courts are binding civil rulings.

Parties tend to be much more satisfied with the rulings and it relieves the courts of contentious issues. They're a positive all around.

beamish said...

I don't see advocacy for worker ownership as a cornerstone of Nazi policy.

Says the worker / means of production who's never been owned by a government-run labor camp under penalty of death.

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Certain aspects of sharia (not all) are in direct conflict with our civil laws. Therein lies a serious problem.

Are rabbinical courts in conflict with our civil laws or merely an adjunct to those civil laws?

Anonymous said...

Even more important is this:

Have the Jews made any attempt to have non-Jews made subject to "Rabbinical Law," or are they content to settle disputes within their own ranks only using this peculiarly Jewish system?

The Muslims would definitely impose Sharia on the whole world -- if so-called "liberal" imbeciles let them get away with it by hobbling attempts by conservatives like myself who have nativist sympathies to stand up to what-amounts-to hostile foreign COLONIZATION of the West.

We MUST face facts. "Race" is as big a part of this as religion OR culture. If that were not so, why do certain ethnic groups naturally gravitate to towards social mores and cultural practices distinctly their own -- and distinctly at odds with those unlike themselves?

When the USA truly was a "melting pot," we did extremely well, but that was when our immigration policies favored Caucasians of European background. Those various groups did not get along particularly well -- at first -- but gradually English, Irish, German, Scandinavian, Polish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and others Europeans effectively formed a new "ethnicity" uniquely and distinctly American.

Aggressive foreign dissident elements, welcomed here with open arms by mischief-making "Progressives," Marxists and so-called Liberals determined to disrupt, undermine and fundamentally transform our naturally evolving culture and ethnicity have done incalculable harm to our prospects.

Like it or not we have been a predominantly White, Protestant-Christian nation founded on principles derived from Biblical Commandments, English Common Law, and Enlightenment philosophy from John Locke, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau, Emmerich Vatel and others.

~ FreeThinke

dmarks said...

Ducky asked: "Instead of the pithy aphorisms maybe you and dmarks can explain why the first mass internment in the extermination camps were socialists and communists."

Remember, the Nazis were also a socialist movement. So it was socialists detaining other socialists.

But otherwise, socialists and communists tend to be raving totalitarian maniacs who like to kill large percentages of the population to get their way.

Just like the Nazis, true, but Nazis don't want anyone oppressing unless it is them.

There's little difference between Nazism and other branches of socialism. The demands for more government power, the mean streak of antisemitism, complete disregard for individual rights, all pretty much universal to any branch of socialism.


----------------
Beamish said: "Says the worker / means of production who's never been owned by a government-run labor camp under penalty of death."

Yes, and workers have the most rights under capitalism.


"I don't see advocacy for worker ownership as a cornerstone of Nazi policy."

It is not a cornerstone of MOST socialist movements. Most advocate for government control, not worker control.