US News and World Report Dan Gilgoff
Democrats kick off a multifront campaign to connect with religious voters
Just because Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean got in hot water last month for calling the Republicans “pretty much a white, Christian Party” doesn’t mean he’s not hunting for white, Christian votes. At a meeting last week with liberal evangelical preacher Jim Wallis–which began with a prayer led by Dean’s chief of staff, who is a Pentecostal minister–Dean drilled the antiabortion Wallis on how to make party rhetoric on abortion rights more values-friendly. “Nobody is pro-abortion,” Dean said, according to a party official. “But do you want the government telling you what to do in your personal life?”
Dean is doing more than tinkering with the party line; he’s spearheading a new campaign to woo religious voters. There’s been so much outreach to religious groups in his five months at its helm that the Democratic National Committee hired an experienced Capitol Hill aide last week to help manage the effort. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have stepped up consultations with religious leaders. After taking a hit among “values” voters in the last election, Democrats are strategizing on how to play up what they call the moral–and in some cases biblical–underpinnings of their political convictions. Complementing the official effort is a crop of new, religiously affiliated advocacy groups. “Democrats had [thought] it a bit unseemly to wear your religion on your sleeve,” says South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn. “But those of us who’ve been walking the walk . . . have decided it’s time to talk the talk.” The success of that effort could determine whether Democrats start winning elections again.
It is indeed sad that we need a public awareness campaign to inform the public that, yes, Democrats can be Christians too. But the Swiftboat-like smear that Democrats can’t be Christians was aggressively diseminated by right-wing organizations and happily maintained by an unquestioning corporate media. On her vacation last summer my mother was screamed at by a woman she met who told her that John Kerry was a “bad Catholic” and that Democrats (like my mom) hated Christians. This was news to my mother who was a teacher at Sts. Constantine & Helen for many years.
The next attack from the right-wing propaganda machine may be the charge that the use of values-based language from Democrats is part of a “make-over” and not really sincere. Amy Sullivan writes, “Jill Lawrence, one of USA Today’s campaign correspondents in 2004, has observed that very few political reporters wrote about the way Kerry used religious language-even though, she noted, it occurred every week on the campaign trail, because they assumed that Democratic candidates weren’t deeply religious. “The stereotype of the Democratic Party is so deep that it never broke through,” she said. That’s already happening with Clinton, whose religious references and comments on abortion generated headlines early in 2005. Most news outlets characterized her remarks as a distinct break from the past – implying that she was transforming herself for a White House run-even though she is a former Sunday School teacher who has spoken publicly about religion for decades and her comments on abortion were consistent with her husband’s mantra that abortion should be ‘safe, legal, and rare’.”
“Hillary in 2008? Not so fast.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.sullivan1.html
Of course as Jim Wallis, points out the Democrats can still manage to make themselves look insincere if they are not careful. Another comment by Howard Dean that the Book of Job is “his favorite chapter of the New Testament” would be disasterous. That is why I think it is important for the Democrats to get behind the proposal of the Democrats for Life that we set fixed, measurable goals for the reduction of abortions in this country and start proposing initiatives to make those reductions happen. To quote the Marine rifleman in the movie “Full Metal Jacket” they can’t just “talk the talk, they have to “walk the walk”.
Good for Democrats for Life, who, through their support for partial reduction of abortion, will be talking part of the talk and walking part of the walk.
Hey, maybe this will help them with part of that insincerity thing.
Bill: What laws governing abortion do we want if Roe v Wade goes away? I think its important for us to start thinking about that as a nation. When you consider the different possible scenarios that could unfold, the Democrats for Life proposal doesn’t look so bad:
1) Laws governing abortion are determined by the States. Abortions would be totally banned in states like Alabama and Utah, but remain legal in states like New York and California. Women wanting abortions would cross state lines or have an illegal procedure at home. No effort is made by the government to address the underlying causes of abortion. Congress remains divided and the federal government maintains a morally-neutral stance.
2) Federal laws banning abortion supercede state laws. If the Federal laws banning medical marijauna overide state laws legalizing it, why can’t federal laws prohibiting abortion overide state laws allowing abortion? Women wanting an abortion would have to seek someone to perform an illegal procedure, in possibly unsafe conditions, and most likely a sharp increase in medical injuries, complications and deaths would result. The federal government declares that abortion is morally-wrong and socially undesireable but does nothing to address the underlying causes of abortion.
3) Federal laws are passed that allow unrestricted abortions in the first trimester and restricted abortions in the second trimester writing into law the current system we have now with Roe v. Wade. Abortions remain safe for women and there is no effort by the government, which maintains a morally neutral stance, to reduce them.
4) Federal laws are passed allowing the states to restrict and discourage, but not prohibit abortion, and it remains safe and legal. Studies are performed to better understand the causes of unwanted pregnancies and abortion, and the government introduces a series of laws and public health measures to address those causes. There is a clear statement by government leaders that abortion is morally-wrong and socially undesireable and that reducing it is a national priority.
Insurance and public health funding for abortions of social convenience are phased-out. Adoption is encouraged and further subsidized for both mothers and adoptive parents. Educational programs directed at young people emphasizing safe and responsible sexual behavior are increased and expanded. The CDC begins reporting the annual number of abortions, and the Department of Health and Human Services sets specific reduction targets. If those targetes are not met, stronger actions are taken.
Since I can’t see Congress voting to either totally ban abortions or write Roe v. Wade into law, 1 and 4 seem like the most likely scenarios. Of those two, #4 would be the best.
What, exactly, is unclear, Dean?
“Studies are performed to better understand the causes of unwanted pregnancies and abortion….”
I’m not sure what Howard Dean is thinking. Clearly his concern that the Democrats have to appeal to pro-lifers is tacit admission that the Democrats have a morality gap. Yet how does he expect the hard left to give up their leadership of the party?
The pro-abortion position is necessarily absolutist. It demands the dehumanization of the unborn child in order to remove the moral approbation against killing children. It cannot possibly coexist with the pro-life position that begins with the philosophical and biological premise that an unborn child is indeed a human being, and taking the life of that child is tantamount to killing.
Will a Kennedy or Boxer ever countenance an evaluation of the moral bankrupcty of their defense of abortion? It doesn’t seem likely. Even when pushed to edges of their moral philosophy in the debates about partial birth abortion a few years ago, they unflinchly clung to their positions.
Dean is not a particularly deep thinker. It appears he thinks that a pro-abortion and pro-life position can live in (strained?) harmony with each other. They can’t. Pro-lifers have been chased out of any leadership in the Democratic party and it is doubtful that the cultural leftists that dominant it will give up their ground. (They will probably remove Dean first.)
Dean,
Roe v. Wade has made committed Christians virtual prisoners of the Republican Party. I would dearly, dearly love to call Republican politicians such as George W. Bush to account for a multitude of policies of theirs over which I disagree. However, the same result always comes back from my Republican friends, “We have to swallow our misgivings and vote for this Senator or that Presidential candidate because they either confirm or appoint justices to the the Supreme Court and we have to do something about Roe.”
This issue tops the charts more than immigration, more than tort reform, more than taxation. Killing babies keeps Christians on the Republican plantation, even when the President totally disses us on so many other issues that we also care about.
Personally, I’d love to get out of the ghetto and build a truly conservative party. That will not happen, however, as long as protecting the killing of babies is the number one priority of the Democratic Party. There are tons of Christians who would be willing to vote Democratic or vote third party as soon as the Dems drop their rabidly pro-abortion stance. Until that day, however, this issue will continue to stitch together a Republican coalition and keep its members silent. If the Democrats really cared about winning elections, then a sincerely pro-life Presidential candidate with a credible foreign policy record could literally destroy anyone the Republicans could field in 2008. Too bad that won’t happen.
Dean, I’m not avoiding your question by pointing out that there are larger issues at stake here which must be considered first. You ask, “What laws should we enact?” I answer, “What is the proper moral attitude towards abortion?” This question must be answered in our society before any effective legislation may be crafted. Governments cannot legislate morality; legislation can only reflect a moral consensus.
The “solution” you appear to support still does not fully address (hence my “partial” repartee) the moral evil of abortion. “Safe, legal, and rare” does not sanitize the issue the way certain Democrats would like. Innocent unborn children are still deliberately killed, in the name of “women’s rights.” What about the unborn child’s right to live? What about the father’s right to protect his child’s life? How does the left answer that question without resorting to nonsensical language like calling a fetus “an undifferentiated blob of tissue” or pregnancy a “disease”?
Unless the left honestly addresses these questions, I for one will continue to view leftist views on this issue as insincere, motivated by ideology rather than moral principles, and intellectually dishonest.
Bill: Or is it just moral cowardice? As Father Jacobse suggests, Howard Dean hasn’t demonstrated a lot of intellectual depth lately and may still be a little clueless, as people like Jim Wallis try and coach him on what religious voters want to hear. I find myself groaning and wincing as I listen to him blurt out the first catch-phrase or applause line that pops into his head without thinking about whether it is really applicable to the topic at hand.
But Hillary Clinton should know better. She’s a very intelligent and politically savvy woman who grew up in the Methodist Church among people of faith. She recently called for Democrats to unite and move to the center. A few months ago she called abortion “a tragic choice”. She needs to take the next step and say WHY it is a tragic choice (because it’s morally wrong) and suggest how exactly she plans to make it “safe, legal, and RARE”.
If, out of political calculation, Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats try and say as little as possible on abortion for fear of offending the far left wing of thier party that will be very disappointing.
Dean, any compromise on abortion in the internal leadership of the Democratic party is a call to civil war. I think the war needs to be fought so that the Democrats can throw off the shackles of the hard left. It will split the party and they will suffer short-term loses — big ones in fact. But long term the cancer will have been exorcized and the party can return to the table with ideas beyond aborting unborn children, the marriage of homosexuals, or the killing of handicapped citizens — all positions that in the public mind the party sees as central. (Listen to the substance of the critiques by Kennedy, Schumer, etc. about the nomination of Judge Roberts, for example.)
Hillary Clinton is not the party’s best candidate, although she is probably the most electable given the internal workings of the party. Her negatives are very high, which means she is perceived as a charter member of the hard left. Whether she can pull off a move the center is doubtful (but not impossible), or whether other factors converge to effect a Democratic win (a third party candidate so that a Democrat wins by plurality over majority — like her husband), the internal conflict in the party is only put off, not resolved.
Wallis’ religious/political apologetic will not prove effective. The Democrats are underestimating the depth of religious conviction against the social policies of the Democratic party. Wallis offers only a patina of religious credibility that doesn’t speak to the deep moral repugnance that morally conservative voters (many of them former Democrats) hold about these issues.
The “killing of handicapped citizens”? Who’s advocating that, exactly? And why do too many on the “Right” pick and choose over who they feel is worthy of sustaining for indefinite periods of time? I don’t recall any of our dear sisters at Concerned Women for America flipping their navy-blue wigs over someone having to pull the plug on some indigent who can’t pay for their hospital stay. That’s just a proper display of financial savvy, I guess.
Dean, thanks for the open answer. My calculating side grins and rubs its hands together every time Howard Dean opens his mouth. He’s one of the best advertisements out there for conservative principles. But my sympathetic side also winces on behalf of the good-hearted Democrats I know who have to have someone like that as their party chief. It seems to me he got the job because the hard left reacted so strongly against Bush’s re-election. Alas, such hasty action can backfire loudly…
If the Democratic Party were to undertake the self-cleansing Fr. Hans describes, it would be free to think creatively, to build credible policy, to put up serious candidates who would pose credible challenges to the middle and center-right candidates. I would love that. Peggy Noonan once wrote an open letter to the Democratic Party wishing for just such a situation. Imagine the benefits to this country and its political discourse.
As for Jim Wallis, I think the title of his book — “God’s Politics” — says it all. He claims, de facto, that God is on his side and supports his own politics. In itself, this is theological arrogance of the kind that will not escape ultimate judgment. It also partakes of every political impulse throughout history — liberal or conservative — that has tried to cloak its claims in the power of the divine. Just the title is enough to warn me away from him. The Orthodox perspective of humility before God, of not claiming God for our side, but humbly asking for the grace of being counted worthy of being on *His* side, can have nothing to do with Wallis’ approach.
As for Hillary Clinton, I believe that her guiding “principle” is political ambition. Other considerations come in a distant second. Her “move to the center” isn’t really a change of heart on issues like abortion, but a political maneuver. She’s staking out what she perceives to be the best vantage point for the 2008 battle. Will she try to establish a new moderate rhetoric about abortion? That’s risky, because neither the hard left nor the right, both of which hold absolute positions, may cede any ground to her. Or will she abandon dialogue and join the shouting match? If so, how will she distinguish herself from anyone else?
What do you think? And thanks for the post.
Addendum: Dean, I don’t mean to imply that your posts aren’t open. Please forgive that unintended implication. I usually disagree with you, but I also believe that your willingness to let it all hang out on this blog helps keep it fun and interesting.
Note 10. The hard left advocates euthanasia just as they advocate infanticide.
The decline in abortion rates to thier lowest level since 1974 demonstrates that it is as important to change the underlying attitudes, behaviors and influences that result in abortion, as it is to change the laws.
“WASHINGTON – Abortion may flare up as the most emotional issue for senators and activists when confirmation hearings begin in September for President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts. But statistically, it is becoming less and less of a factor for American women. The national abortion rate has been declining for more than two decades. It is now at its lowest since 1974, the year after the court’s Roe v. Wade decision overturned states’ abortion bans by ruling that a woman’s decision to terminate pregnancy through surgery is a matter of privacy protected by the Constitution.
Activists on both sides of the fight say abortion rights supporters have been less passionate about their beliefs in recent years than abortion opponents – perhaps partly because women who are now of peak childbearing age were born after Roe. Some may take legal abortion for granted. Others may be influenced by mothers, siblings or friends who had negative experiences with abortion, or who had regrets years later.
“It’s a very different way that 20-and 30-year-olds are seeing this (nowadays),” said Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America, an anti-abortion group for which Roberts’ wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, serves as legal counsel. “It’s not about criminalizing it. They just don’t want to see it happen.”
To an extent, abortion rights advocates agree.
“The major thing you’re seeing is the increased intensity around prevention,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and pollster for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “People want to reduce the need for abortions.”
But Lake said past court fights have shown that women who support abortion rights will snap to attention when they feel their right to choose is vulnerable. “People worry about things when they need to,” she said.
Over the years, religious conservatives who believe life begins at conception have sought justices who would chip away at or throw out the Roe decision. While Roberts has given them nothing concrete to go on, some are hopeful he would tip a divided court in that direction.
Meanwhile, data released last month by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, reported that fewer than 21 of every 1,000 women between 15 and 44 had an abortion in 2002, the most recent year for which data was available. That compares with a rate of more than 29 per 1,000 at abortion’s peak in the United States, in 1980 and 1981. If the trend continues, abortion could soon recede to its 1974 rate, about 19 per 1,000 per women of childbearing age.”
“As abortions fall, activism wanes”, Published 2:15 am PDT Monday, August 1, 2005
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13334917p-14176971c.html
Wasn’t there an abort our babies march in Washington last month? Aren’t Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy pushing for a pro-abortion litmus test on the Roberts nomination?
Sounds to me like a tactical retreat in the spin wars from the pro-choice side. They sound so reasonable in the article but in their activities they are as strident as ever. Notice how they guard the premise that abortion is a right? Their problem is that once people start thinking of abortion in terms of the humanity of the unborn child, moral reasoning is awakened and all the cries about a women’s right to abort the child start to ring hollow.
Any retreat, tactical or otherwise, is still a retreat. And since abortion is largely a battle of ideas about intrinsic human value, the posture that pro-choicers actually want to see less abortions makes them even more vulnerable to the moral objections. If abortion is not the deliberate killing of a child, what difference does it make if we have less of it? If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion, why reduce the need for them?
It looks like they can no longer deny that public opinion is moving against them.
Certainly a consistent ethic of life does not require a moral equivalency among various moral issues. I would agree with my conservative friends that the abortion issue is a preeminent concern because it concerns the protection of human life against certain destruction. Abortions of social convenience are the most objectionable and least defensible because they cannot be weighed against any offsetting concern, such as the life or health of the mother in situations when pregnancies become dangerous.
However, does that preeminence require single-issue voting – where a politicians morally correct position on the abortion is deemed to absolve him from responsibility for morally incorrect positions on a number of other moral issues, or a record of incompetence in carrying out his duties? I don’t believe it does.
The American people are slowly beginning to understand that we will probably lose the war in Iraq. With an election coming next November there will be enormous pressure for American forces to begin leaving next year. Pressure to leave Iraq is also coming from the US military itself which probably realizes that another year of involvement in Iraq at this level will probably break the severely over-stretched volunteer army. At the same time no one seriously expects native Iraqi forces to be able to replace the American units that will be leaving, or to have the strength to repel an insurgency that shows no signs of waning (as indicated by the loss of 21 Marines this week).
The term “insurgency” may be a misnomer itself because what we are probably really seeing is a continuation of the Iraq-Iran war of the late 1980’s fought by the Sunni Baathist/Al Qaeda coalition against the Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite majority. This is a civil war, not an insurgency.
So far the Shiites have not been hostile to US forces because they see us on the same side as them against the Sunnis. However, this week the Iranians announced their plan to go ahead and reprocess uranium that could be used to build nuclear weapons. If we respond against Iran too harshly with sanctions they could provoke their Iraqi Shiite proxies against us, presenting a threat to us from the south as we are occupied fighting the Sunni forces to the north and west.
The most likely outcome in Iraq today is a long civil war followed by the establishment of an Islamic theocracy aligned with Iran that will once again turn hostile to the United States and Israel. This would be a most unsatisfactory outcome for the US after all the blood and treasure we have expended.
So how should a Christian respond if it becomes apparent that thousands of American lives have been needlessly lost and and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax dollars totally wasted due to the deceptions, miscalculations and gross mismanangement of the present adminstration? Are we required to forgive and forget all in the name of abortion?
“Single issue” voting is a red-herring Dean. It’s a polemical device intended to discredit pro-lifers by pro-choicers by painting them as ignorant rubes, too wrapped up in abortion to consider other matters. It really doesn’t fly any more, except perhaps with Democratic senators who want to apply an abortion litmus test to the Roberts nomination.
BTW, did you read that the NYT is investigating the adoption records of Robert’s children? This is ugly, very ugly. They are sending the message that any conservative nominated to the Court will have every detail of his life exposed for public consumption. I think the NYT is scared to death a conservative court is coming and they will crawl into the sewers to stop it.
Father said, “?Single issue? voting is a red-herring Dean.”
Well, no it isn’t. Not on either side. I know plenty of dyed-in-the-wool leftists who are sick to death of the Democratic Party, who nevertheless keep voting that way because abortion is the single most important issue on their minds. Twisted, but true.
As a corollary to this, these folks who stand for the ‘common man,’ find themselves siding with the Supremes who gave us the Kelo decision in which developers can use political influence to take the land of middle class ‘common people.’ The abortion issue is used to keep them in-line and in the fold.
On the opposite side, the same thing is true. Abortion keeps the Republican Party stitched together, even though the fault lines are readily apparent for all to see. Judge Roberts gave pro bono legal advice to the gay rights group that overturned Colorado’s voter repeal of gay initiatives. The primary counsel for the case called Robert’s help essential in winning. That won’t make it on your site as a news article, will it Father Hans?
But – the Republicans will stay in the tent, voting for Republican Senators and Republican presidential candidates despite all the farm bills, the open borders, the wasted tax dollars on pork, the failed War in Iraq, etc. The Republicans will stay because they feel like they don’t have a choice.
If the American people ever decided to tell the Supreme Court to stuff it, then such things as abortion would be decided at the state or local level. Then local politics would suddenly return to prominence. That would certainly upset the apple cart for those whose lives are spent stumping for donations to influence Washington. However, it would certainly be a healthy outcome for a Republic.
The abortion issue is a festering sore. It needs to be lanced. The only way to do that is to turn it back into what it is. It’s a political issue, and needs to be addressed in the political arena. To do that, we need to simply stand up and ignore the Supreme Court by voting at the State level to ban abortion and standing by it. As long as we pretend the Supreme Court can simply grant ‘rights’ out of thin air, and then simply take them away later, we have an oligarchy not a Republic.
The argument that pro-lifers are single issue voters (Dean’s point) is different than your point that abortion is a coalescing factor in party identification. Understand how the argument is used (read the premise behind Dean’s point), but don’t expand the premise to describe circumstances to which it doesn’t apply.
(Dean’s post was really about Iraq, not abortion, and the jibe about “single issue” was meant to silence detractors before he launched into his critique, hence “rhetorical ploy”.)
On abortion and party identification read the article I just posted by Joseph Bottum The New Fusionism.
I haven’t got the details on Roberts and the alleged pro-bono work, but if you look closely there are no articles on the site about the Roberts nomination – pro or con.
I agree that a Christian should consider the policy on abortion of a party and/or their candidate for office before casting their vote. I agree that, all things being equal, a Christian should support a candidate in favor or sharply reducing abortions. I agree that the candidate’s position on abortion should carry more weight than, say, his position on saving the Northern Spotted Owl, eben though we consider preserving God;s creation a moral issue too.
The problem is all things are rarely equal. On the one hand, the position of the Democratic party on abortion is a real problem for me. Even those Democrats calling for abortion to become “rare” have yet to explain what they would do to make it so, and this is a clear separation from the consistent ethic of life. On the other hand I see the policies of the Republican party removed from the consistent ethic of life as well, as it increasingly serves as the compliant tool of the rich and powerful allowing the gap between rich and poor to widen. The process of weighing the moral plusses and minuses of both of them is really difficult.
If the Iraq war continues to goes badly the party and the leadership that promoted and mismanaged the campaign need to be held responsible and they shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind the abortion issue, important as it is, to avoid accountability. That was my point.
From a British perspective I laugh at your references to the Democrats as “hard left”. By European standards both your political parties are conservative. In Britain Hillary Clinton would be an ambitious Tory.So would John Kerry and all the rest. The last relatively left wing or socially progressive politician you had was LBJ. None of your parties support universal free health care, or social security or pensions in the european mode. Margaret Thatcher did though although she always seems lauded as a right wing symbol in USA. In Europpe you can be a conservative or socialist or liberal Orthodox Christian. I suspect the protestant individualistic element is too influential in USA. In Europe most conservative parties in southern areas are guided by Catholic or Orthodox social or collective ideas. We are a community/in communion not isolated individuals fighting it out!
Number 17: The adoption records of Robert’s children are irrelevant and digging into them for ammunition against his nomination is a despicable and innappropriate tactic.
I may not be thrilled by some of Judge Robert’s more conservative views, or his work for the Bush campaign in Noverber 2000. But his views are within the mainstream, and more importantly his qualifications are impeccable. He has worked in the highest reaches of government on extremely complex legal cases and has much actual experience preparing and arguing cases before the Supreme Court. None of the decisions Roberts has rendered have been found to be defective in any way.
If Bush had nominated a far-out ideologue like Janice Rogers Brown, who wants to roll back the New Deal and go back to 19th century legal theories, then I would have said the Democrats ought to fight the nomination. But John Roberts is a qualified, experienced, mainstream candidate. If he cannot be approved merely on the basis of somewhat, though not extremely, conservative views, than a future Democratic President will find his SCOTUS nominees in danger merely for somewhat, though not extremely, liberal.
#21. Mr. Forrester, enjoy it while it lasts. In fifty years your “community” will be relegated to a permanent status of dhimmitude under your new Muslim rulers.
You do keep an eye on population trends, don’t you?
Note 22: Mr. Forrester, No Fighting it Out?
The suicide bombers in your subway system were definitely fighting it out. The Telegraph has published survey results that state that as many as 13% of British Muslims are willing to publicly state that they have “no allegiance” to Britain. Now that the British have admitted these barbarians to Britain, now that the barbarians have been legally empowered to resist assimilation to your increasingly weakened Christian culture, what will you do with them?
I consider polygamy barbaric and I am fully entitled to refer to Islam as barbaric. I am joined in this opinion by Winston Churchill who, in the end, tends to be proven right. Mohammed taught that women are deficient in intellect, so please don’t tell me about Islam honoring women. See Bukhari Hadith for the reference to Mohammed’s comment on women’s intellect. Given that he was illiterate, Mohammed had a lot of nerve to denigrate womens’intellects. You do understand that polygamy is practiced “under the table” in Britian and that your national tax office is beginning to accommodate itself to this “reality.”
Please don’t respond with prattle about “moderate Islam” and common “Abrahamic faith.” One of the translations of “dhimmi” is “criminal.” This is the result of the Muslim teaching that Jews and Christians have intentionally falsified God’s word and that our Scriptures are full of intentional lies. Good Muslims avoid touching copies of the Old or New Testament. They don’t respect Britain, they have no allegiance to it and they consider you to be “unclean” and your female relatives to be the equivalent of practitioners of the world’s oldest profession.
Cherrio and Good Luck.
With reference to comments made I hadn’t realised that to be an Orthodox or Catholic Christian one had to be a right wing conservative and opponent of , say , a national health service as European countries have.Your so-called left wing party doesn’t support what social democrats, liberals and conservatives support in Europe. There is a world outside the USA you know. I fail to see the connection between supporting aggressive capitalism and opposing Islam. The late Pope was against both the former and the latter , after all. State assistance for the poor and universal health provision through tax do not lead to Islamic control.That was what I meant about a society which looks after each other rather than individuals fighting it out. I just wanted to make the point that there are different views on these things and the Protestantised American view can seem strange to European Orthodox and Catholics.
I’m sure lots of things about America look strange to Europeans, regardless of whether they are Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. On many of the issues you raised, Christians can be on both sides of the issues, which is why they are better discussed on their merits or disqualifications alone. It avoids erroneous assertions like “state assistance for the poor and universal health provision through tax do not lead to Islamic control.” No one has argued that it does.
Note 25 Some response to David Forrester
David writes:Your so-called left wing party doesn?t support what social democrats, liberals and conservatives support in Europe.
Missourian replies: Yes, in fact, most on the political Left in America support what social democrats support in Europe. See Jeremy Rifkin’s recent book which declared that the economic future belonged to Europe. As Glenn Reynolds would say “heh.” The Asian Indian born President of Pepsi stated what many in the America Left today believe and that is that “Europe leads the way.” Thanks, but, I rather not go to Europe, my chador is at the drycleaner. Note, I have been to Europe. My conclusion is that the exterior is well-preserved but the interiors usually disapoints. After a few weeks, I felt claustrophobic.
David writes: There is a world outside the USA you know.
Missourian replies: Yes, there is. The vast majority of the world outside the U.S.A. is mired in poverty. Leadership in economics, science, communications and many other fields is still provided by America and increasingly by India, Taiwan, Singapore, and China. Israel by the way makes a hugely disproportionate contribution to high technology.
By the way, is there some universal EU rule that EVERY European must trot out that tired old line about “there is a world outside the USA.” This is the standard European sneer. Europeans know more languages because, for example, Germany is no more than twice the size of Indiana. If a four-hour car trip can bring you in contact with as many as 4 different countries, you need to learn more than one language. I would point out that the language of technology is English. C++ and its linguistic progeny is written in English. C++ was developed by a Danish born computer scientist who came to the United States because it was here that he could find the freedom and support to persue his highest interests. Thank you Bell Labs. You have America to thank for C++ (and its progeny) which is supporting this blog.
Western Europe is close to economically stagnant. It suffers from a continuing scientific brain drain due to the lack of political and economic dynamism. Apart from financial rewards, many European scientists emigrate to America simply because the sclerotic bureaucracies of Europe prevent them from persuing the research projects that truly interest them. Europe is saddled with an unsustainable welfare state, declining population and a rising Islamic population that holds classical European culture in intense contempt. The Muslims are willing to die for their ideas, the Europeans are simply dying from their ideas.
See my next note for “the connection between ‘aggressive capialism’ and opposing Islam.
Note 18: Glen Likes Telling Half-Truths About John Roberts
“The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.”
Glen, you made it sound as if Roberts was pushing for a domestic partnership or gay marriage agenda. He wasn’t. He was simply rejecting the idea of setting aside gays as a specific caste of people to exclude from protection in jobs and housing (and which the overturned Amendment attempted to do). I’m not sure how this is a radical departure from conservative ideals: the case, if my readings are accurate, rejects the idea that gays fall within a minority classification to whom rights can either be granted or denied. Perfectly consistent with a conservative ideology.
The guy’s getting criticized from both sides of the aisle. That confirms my feeling that he should be confirmed quickly.
Note 25 Aggressive Capitalism
David’s sneer against “aggressive capitalism” is an attack on a straw man. First, “capitalism” is a Marxist term. “Free markets” is the phrase used to describe what a free people do when they are allowed to buy and sell goods and services without the interference of governmnet. Scour Marxist literature as long as you like and you will NEVER find a set of guidelines for creating wealth. Only the brain dead fail to recognize that free markets have driven virtually all material progress enjoyed on this planet since the Industrial Revolution. Note a good deal of Marxism arose as a critique of the displacements suffered as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Might want to remember that that revoluation is over, we are two technological revoluations down the road, at least in America, we are.
America does not follow a true laissez faire system. We are awash in regulatory agencies that protect consumers of drugs, investors in the stock market, bank depositors, airline travelers, and many other groups of people.
The CONNECTION BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND OPPOSITION TO ISLAM?
First, I would like to ask David, how, exactly, has Europe been opposing Islam? I would say that the Marxist assault on Christianity weakened European culture until it reached its current state of helpless supine appeasement to the Islamic world. Both Marx and Engels and their followers wrote a great deal about DESTROYING THE CRADLE OF CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION: The family. You are nearly done with breaking up the family, not much left to do.
SAY, HOW DID THAT POLICY WORK OUT? WHAT EXACTLY DID HAPPEN WHEN EUROPE ACCEPTED….. free love, illegitimacy of children, serial marriages, easy divorce, the normalization of homosexuality easy abortion Plummeting birth rates and dissapearing native populations? Well, maybe your Islamic friends will allow you a homeland within Europe where people can come and visit and example quaint surviving artifacts of European culture. Pictorial art will be destroyed of course, as well as any cathedrals that aren’t converted to mosques. Say good-bye to most sports and the Louvre non-Islamic art collection.
Note David Forester: Point Out How Europe has Opposed Islam
Europe has enable and appeased Islam at every turn. Please point out how European elites have opposed Islam. They have, in fact, enlisted as allies with Islam in degrading Christian culture.
Abolishing Freedom of Speech in Britain: Triumph of Islam
If reports coming out of Britain are correct, the UK stands poised to pass hate speech legislation that would, in effect, make it illegal to criticize Islam. For instance, in the UK, I may not be able to point out that Mohammed declared women “deficient in intellect.” In engineering, we call that a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS. Mohammed has been proven wrong. He is and was a sham, a murderer, a torturer, a sex addict and a pedophile. References supporting these claims available on request. Query, can you say that in public in Britain? If you don’t get arrested will you have a brick thrown through your window?
As the the usual hoo-haa about whether I know anything about Islam, I just finished a four year course of study in which I worked with Muslims, both observant and apostate, every day. Both the apostate and the observant Muslims spoke to me quite a bit about their “faith.” I also own a very delightful English translation of the Bukhari Hadith, a truly noxious exposition of the true nature of Islam, ignorant and barbaric to its core. By the way, the copy of the Bukhari Hadith that I owned was translated and published in Britain. I may visit Britian in the next two years. If I am there, can I state in public that Islam is ignorant and barbaric?
It is your policy of treating all cultures as equally worthy of respect which has allowed the colonization of Britian by huge populations which depise Britian and want to see the abolition of all that is British.Cheri Blair worked for a young girl who was not content with a long jacket and trousers, but, insisted on a chador that fully covered her body leaving only her face and hands visible. Bravo, Cheri.
The Left has always worked for the abolition of Christian society. As you well know Marx and Engels wrote a great deal about the family and attacked it as a bourgious (sp?) institution. The Anglican Church has been reduced to farce. The family is an antiquated institution floating in a sea of laws supporting homosexual conduct, casual sexual relations, casual reproduction and irresponsible parenting. Have a baby out of wedlock and get the state to support your for generations.
This opens the door for Islam which promises young people strong and secure families, over the backs of women, of course, but strong and secure, nonetheless. Better a husband who beats you, but who actually supports you and provides a home for you and your children. There have been interviews in which Italian women have explained their marriage to Muslims this way. Italian men no longer see any need to marry and become heads of households. There is little stigma left to illegitimacy and the government will pay to raise the child anyway.
SO HOW HAS THAT MULTI-CULTURAL PROGRAM WORKED OUT FOR YOU?
You have Islamic ghettos where pratically no English is spoken. You have state sponsored schools where imams are allowed to teach jihad. You have a welfare state system that has supported idle jihadis. You have an asylum system (ours is not much better) that welcomes jihadis and protects them from the Islamic penalty of death in their home countries.
Many of the same trends can be found in America, however, they are less entrenched. I fervently hope that the sad example of Britain will help pull America back from the brink.
Bravo, David, bravo.
Anglophile in mourning
I greatly revere the tradition of the English Common law and the tradition of representative democracy advanced and largely perfected in Britain. The core legal doctrines of America are taken directly from English Common Law. English Common Law (ECL) is a great repository of justice and wisdom. ECL is thoroughly Christian in its fundamental worldview and philosophy of justice. I am an Anglophile in mourning, I am looking forward to visiting Britain while I can still walk the streets without an Islamic headscarf.
Best wishes.
JamesK,
The point is that Roberts should never, ever have touched that case with a 10 foot pole. On Romer, the dissenting justices were Justices Antonin Scalia, William H. Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas. In dissent, Scalia wrote:
[Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are […] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced.
He noted a contradiction with the court’s earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), in which it had ruled that laws outlawing sodomy are not unconstitutional. Following on,
If it is rational to criminalize the conduct, surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self-avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct.
Against what he saw as judicial activism, he wrote:
Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject [homosexuality], it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions.
Let’s see, Roberts does pro bono work for a homosexual rights group opposing an amendment to the Colorado Constitution on grounds that it violates the Federal Constitution in some way. He frames an argument that lets them win the day with the Court’s liberals, but which is roundly rejected by authentic conservatives such as Scalia and Thomas. And this is supposed to make me feel good about the man?
The problem for me about Roberts is quite simple. Unlike Thomas or Scalia, we have absolutely no idea where this guy stands on issues such as private property, federalism, Roe v. Wade, or gay rights. Anne Coulter called him a Rohrschach Test for conservatives. And that is what he is, and that is why he bothers the living daylights out of me. He keeps a layer of plausible deniability about him. He has been on all sides of every issues, and keeps claiming to only be representing his clients at all times.
Presidents named Bush have no right to say, “Trust me,” on Supreme Court nominations. The conseratives in this country sent Bush back to Washington to give us a Scalia or a Thomas. Instead, he delivers an enigma. Am I angry? Yes, highly perturbed to say the least. I don’t want any more Souter-style surprises, and Roberts is shaping up to be exactly that. I am afraid that his version of ‘conservatism’ is Stare Decesis concerning Roe v. Wade, Kelo, and a host of other decisions that are nothing short of judicial fiat.
We didn’t vote for George W. in 2000 to get another Souter. While I didn’t vote for George in 2004, most of my friends did. And they didn’t vote again in 2004 to get another Souter either. If Roberts turns out to be one, then George W.’s legacy will be toast.
If you’re right, JamesK, I’ll gladly eat crow from here to Texas. I’d love to be wrong. But right now, we don’t know whether I’m wrong or not. That is the problem!!!!!!
I’m with Glen on this one. Stealth candidates worry me. I want a principled conservative like Thomas or Scalia. If we end up with a Souter, then there is no functional difference between Kerry and Bush regarding the Court. The Court just ruled the state could take away your property for private business interests. Its stripped the unborn of all protective rights. The stakes are too high for this kind of ambiguity. If he goes liberal, Kelo may be child’s play given that no restraints apply to the liberal side anymore.
Note 33: “If it is rational to criminalize the conduct, surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self-avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct.”
Glen, wow!! Scalia must have had too many glasses of Chivas during lunch when he said this. This means that it is not only Constitutional but rational to single out a class of people to exempt from civil protection based on thought. What are the implications of this? Create a law, then make sure that those who not only break the law but those who even think about breaking the law are exempt from the most basic of human rights (the right to work and have a roof over one’s head), even if they successfully overcome their own “tendencies” and obey the law!! Come again? How do we even begin to legislate this? Also, can you explain why it should be considered a “special favor” to allow someone the dignity of providing for themselves and not living on the street? Perhaps if the case in question involved an amendment that specifically denied all types of “thought criminals” (whatever that means) these rights, it would be acceptable (married men with a wandering eye?). It didn’t. It didn’t even bother with pretending to be consistent!
One thing I look for when these judicial nominations come up is whether the person is consistent in the application of the law regarding who and how the apply it. (Incidentally, it’s a reason why I find the ACLU to be troublesome and insincere. They pretend to stand for “Justice” and “Freedom”, yet they seem to toss these concepts out the window when it comes to ensuring that these basic rights are shared by groups they happen to dislike or disagree with.)
Apparently, what too many want (both on the Right and the Left) is an absolute slave to the party platform. Sad.
My comments were originally addressed to how – from the outside – your so-called left wing party,which doesn’t even talk about a national health service, seems right wing.. Thank you Fr Jacobse for a fair response. However some others comments are downright peculiar. I didn’t raise the issue of Islam, others did. I suppose you are obviously all proud of your country – and rightly so – but just remember please not everyone within or outwith your country shares identical opinions. I know many sincere Orthodox and Catholic Christians of varying mainstream political beliefs. What matters to all of us is not our politics but our love for God and our fellow human beings. As St Silouan of the Holy Mountain said, “we must pray for all”
Note 36 Factual Assertions Not Correct
David, whether or not the Democrats “talk” about a national health service is an issue which can be decided ona factual basis. Given, that you are discussing what has been done in America by Americans, I think the American posters on this board are the better source of information. I provided proof of the opposite assertion, that the Democrat party has in fact discussed national health insurance for decades. Facts are facts, David.
Branding a Country with a Marxist Pejorative is Moral and Polite?
David, you feel perfectly free to brand an entire country with the phrase “aggressive capitalism.” This is just fine with you. It reflects your Marxist worldview and your firm conviction that socialism is inherently moral and free markets are inherently not moral. This core assumption is so deeply embedded in your worldview that you don’t notice it. You think the charge is an act of Christian moral courage. I think the charge is an immoral defense of an ideology that has brought incalcuable suffering and poverty to the world.
Marxism was and is a cultural as well as political and economic phenomenan. Marxists have positioned themselves as opponents of Christian culture, as you well now. The connection between Marxism and Islam is that Marxism has attacked and weakened Christian culture OPENING THE DOOR FOR ISLAM. Marxism has also branded Western civilization as a whole as corrupt and weakened its defenses against Islam.
I would suggest that Britons concentrate on how they will perserve their culture and history from the barbarians that they have invited into their home. The barbarians are attacking you directly now. When they win they will not preserve your culture as you have supported theirs. Islam has a well-defined and aggressive history of destroying cultures that it conquers. Perhaps you should talk to the Hindus of India, the Buddhists of Afghanistan and the Christians of Turkey for starters.
Note 36. I’m not sure what your perceptions about America might be, but rest assured that 1) Americans are aware that many Europeans don’t agree with American opinion, and that 2) Americans are aware that not all them share identical opinions.
No. 37. I meant a full service funded by taxation available to all at the point of need irrespective of their wealth, not just insurance. Which the British Conservative party ( the party of Churchill and Thatcher) supports along with our Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Same as Conservative France and Social democratic Germany have too. Nothing like the Clinton plan. Anyway, Missourian,many Americans too have complained about there being little difference between the US parties. But I’ve made my point. I realise this is a right wing site but Fr J appreciates that all Orthodox Christians don’t share these views. Like the past, America is another country . I suspect the Americans who come to Europe – like a lady from New England I met on pilgrimage to Patmos a few years ago- are atypical.
Note 40 American sterotype, again.
We have a wide variety of political and religious opinions in the United States. There is no particular correlation between visiting Europe and one’s political or religious beliefs.
This is just another condescending jab at Americans of conservative stripe. Conservatives are ill-informed, narrow-minded and don’t “travel” much. Therefore if David met an American in Europe she must have been the liberal, enlightened type. Just can’t strain that congenital condescension from your worldview can you.
Europe just can’t get over seeing itself as the center of the world. It hasn’t been for quite some time. If you look at the current cover of Der Speigel you will see that those editors envision China and the United States competing for world leadership, somehow the Europeans aren’t even in contention.
Economics of health care
There exists considerable empirical experience which shows that single payer health plans are ineffecient, tremendously costly and of doubtful efficacy. Even the Canadian Supreme Court gave up on Canada’s plan and ruled its restraints unlawful. We, Americans, have been told for decades how wonderful the Canadian system was and is. We were supposed to be ashamed because we didn’t have a sytem just like the Canadians. Well, the game is up on that one.
The critical issue is why the average person should not be expected to pay for routine (non-catastrophic) health care as a budgeted expense. Beyond that, healh insurance, properly constructed shifts the cost of catastrophic illnesses to the group of people being insured. If the government promoted a prosperous economy with full employment most people would be able to afford routine health care and insurance. Government assistance could be limited to paying the health insurance premiums for those people who are otherwise uninsurable in the private market. This is a far less costly approach than single payer. Deporting 20 million illegals aliens who abuse the emergency care system in America could also help lower costs.
Imagine that instead of requiring driver’s to have liability insurance, the government had an agency that simply paid for the damages incurred by anyone who was involved in a traffic accident. That expense would be astronomically higher than paying the insurance premiums of a few hard to insure drivers. This is not a perfect analogy but the principle of insurance of the distribution of risk and expense across of group of people. It is the most economical way to pay for irregular and catastrophic expenses.
It is a truism of human nature that as soon as government pays for an expense, individuals assume that the covered expense is an entitlement and make no provision for paying the expense. If we have a prosperous economy with full employment, we will have very few truly indigent individuals or very few truly uninsurable citizens. The government largess could be concentrated on paying those insurance premiums, still far less than paying for the underlying expenses.
Note 39. I hope you recognize that a portion of your “full (health) service funded by taxation” is paid for by Americans. Europe and Canada impose price controls on drugs. Medical advancements, including drug research, most often come from American researchers. The price controls redistribute the cost of research onto Americans, which is why Americans pay more for their prescription drugs than Canadians and Europeans. Good thing America has a robust economy because your taxes would not otherwise support the level of health care you enjoy.
(In America we see Americans going to Canada to fill their prescriptions, and Canadians coming to America for their surgeries.)
In light of the unfriendly and arrogant responses I can’t be bothered continuing this discussion. Ad hominem responses are not what one expects on an Orthodox Christian site when discussing matters like health care. Clearly you are uninterested in other views. I don’t dislike America and am not sure where all the hatred of Europe comes from.
Mr. Forrester, don’t accuse us of ad hominem attacks when you too are guilty of making them. You opened the exchange yourself by laughing at us (your words). You have also repeatedly disparaged our conservative outlooks and stereotyped our ways of thinking. And you have engaged in name-calling; you do so in your final post, calling us arrogant and implying that we are close-minded.
Like most educated Americans, we are happy to discuss issues politely with anyone, and to refrain from ad hominem remarks in favor of getting at the heart of the matter. However, when someone takes a haughty tone with us, as you have done, we don’t just touch our caps and submit. We complain and resist. Now you know something real about Americans.
Americans don’t hate Europe or Europeans. We are simply bemused at the sight of Europeans purging away their heritage (which is our heritage too) in favor of what we consider destructive ideologies. This is fair game for discussion. But you, like so many leftists, assume moral superiority over conservatives, and don’t realize that your condescending language is offensive and counterproductive. As we say in this country, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” I’m sure you can find a leftist site where those sneering attitudes would be right at home. If you do choose to remain, exercise more courtesy, and you will find that people take you more seriously.
What astonishes me about this site is the apparent worship of mammon, and indeed America.That is evidenced not least by the vituperative responses to my mild comments about “social” provision of medicene. I attacked no individual personally (ie ad hominem,) but in return I’m attacked personally as a Marxist ( presumably like a well respected British Orthodox bishop who votes Labour), sneering and my community and indeed continent is on the way out. Ho hum.Can’t people take a little criticism? Everyone had a humour bypass? Clearly you don’t like different views.Try a sense of perspective please. Had I not known otherwise I’d have thought this blog was a satire of a tele-evangelist website. It certainly reads like that. It is(in my view) some Protestant Americans who have changed the collective, community and social based Christian heritage of the middle east and southern Europe and turned it into a free for all, individualistic and obscenely consumptive lottery where money is valued above all. Fortunately many others reject this approach and adhere to the tradition of the Orthodox Church. Please, material success and nationality will not be a defence ” at the dread judgement seat of Christ”
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”
Come down off your high horse, Mr. Forrester, and exercise some courtesy and restraint. Then maybe we can have a good discussion, as well as avoid a little eternal judgment together.
Also, quit trying to preach the Orthodox faith to the serious and informed Orthodox posters to this site. It’s not your place.
Note 46. Mr. Forrester, ideas have consequences in and of themselves. They have to be defended and critiqued on their own terms. Protestations of moral outrage do nothing to defend the credibility or veracity of your ideas, a point shared by almost all posters to this blog, liberals (if grudgingly) and conservatives alike.
If you can separate your own feelings of moral value from the ideas you profess, you will discern that the critique of your ideas is not an attack on you personally. You won’t have to resort to the banal opprobrium you dish out above, ie: your critics worship mammom, cannot take criticism, have no humor, live in a social “free for all, individualistic and obscenely consumptive lottery where money is valued above all,” ad nauseum — none of which speak to your ideas. You might even have some fun.
Needless to say, appeals to authority don’t mean much here either. They carry some weight of course, but not enough to overlook the reasons why a particular authority might think the way he does.
I’d like to recommend a book by a British moral and social conservative I have almost completed. Theodore Dalrymple in Our Culture, What’s Left of It : The Mandarins and the Masses
, argues that the decline of British culture is caused by the kind of ideas you seem to hold dear. Dressing up bad ideas in the lofty language of moral virtue is a bad idea. It renders us powerless to deal with the real nature of real problems, preferring instead a self-indulgent and ultimately self-justifying posturing that creates even more problems down the road. (Sounds like the Church of England.) Call it political correctness if you want. I’ll have a review posted in a week or two.
Missourian, I’m uncertain as to how Marxist philosophies and political systems encourage Islam, though as you said there may be a correlation in their hostility towards Christianity. Your implication seems to be that a thriving Christian (free market? democratic?) government would be efficacious in reducing potential Muslim hostilities within the culture they’re attempting to assimilate into and convert to one more friendly to what they are used to (sharia?).
Actually, it seems the opposite. Unfortunately, the only way to really insure against what we all fear seems to be a reduction in many of the liberties and rights we take for granted. In a country where we pride ourselves in being able to provide almost equal access to our opportunities and benefits to all races, creeds and religions, we may find that we must limit this access by shutting our borders and discriminating by religion or even race. I’m not advocating this, but if it did come to that, it would be merely for survival and in contradiction to the many principles and (religious/ethical) ideals we had when this country was founded. And I’m pretty sure that such isolationism is not necessarily a Christian ethic.
#49. JamesK and Missourian, if I may butt in, I believe the corrolation between Marxism and Islam can indeed be accurately described as a corrolation between Marxism (and other 19th- and 20th-century forms of totalitarianism) and modern political and cultural embodiments of Middle Eastern society. I could be wrong; I am no expert at all. I’m generalizing from some passing comments in an article in the Aug/Sept issue of First Things, an essay review of the book “Hitler’s Mufti.”
It was an eye-opener for me, not least because I discovered that Nobel Peace Prize recipient Yasir Arafat was the protege of the most significant Nazi sympathizer/collaborator in the Middle East, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. (It struck me that his name — Amin Al-Husseini — includes the names of two 20-century bloody dictators.) Al-Husseini was one of the architects of the Final Solution; Arafat met him in Egypt after he fled from Berlin at the end of the war.
Back to your post: It seems obvious to me that anti-Christian, anti-Jewish totalitarian systems would strongly appeal to Islamic would-be totalitarians. The essential precondition for such an unholy political-religious alliance is theological justification of the slaughter of nonbelievers as acceptable to the religion’s god. At that point, atheistic totalitarianism becomes the perfect tool for those who want to conquer the world with that belief. What a satanic idea: God and Nietzche reconciled. (Ugh, now I think I should go to confession.)
Perhaps in the face of such a foe, American society does need to tighten up its understanding of liberty and immigration. But in what ways and how much?