Jewish World Review Ira Rifkin September 11, 2006
He polished the prose of Muslim leaders so their views would be marketable. He invited them home to break bread. He even attacked his co-religionists in print for not being more realistic. No more.
In January 1985, the Los Angeles newspaper I worked for assigned me to the religion beat. My first story was a feature on what was then a new phenomenon in Southern California, a fully licensed Muslim parochial school.
About 35 youngsters attended South Pasadena’s New Horizon Preschool and Kindergarten. It was the first of its kind in Los Angeles County and it operated under the auspices of the Islamic Center of Southern California, then as now one of this nation’s preeminent Muslim institutions. New Horizon’s purpose, I was told, was “to teach the values of Islam to the new generation.”
New Horizon, which now has grown considerably over the past two decades and now has several branches, was my introduction to Islam and to Muslims. Since then I’ve spent considerable professional time exploring the American Muslim community. I’ve also sought out participation in Jewish-Muslim interfaith activities; I’ve broken bread with Muslims at their homes and at mine, and at the White House at official presidential Ramadan break-the-fast events.
I fully embraced, even relished, these opportunities. Information and dialogue, I believed, could lower if not eliminate the barriers of suspicion that kept Muslims and Jews from understanding each others’ hopes and fears. We live in the United States, not the Middle East, I told myself. Here, reason might prevail.
Sadly, I no longer have much faith in that coming to pass. Five years after the Twin Towers crashed and the Pentagon burned I find myself profoundly soured on the idea that the two communities can ever work together to defuse the disharmony between them. Certainly not for the foreseeable future. Perhaps never.
. . . more
Note 49. He who writes under the label “Bore,” and others, exemplify the right-wing Christian tactic of labeling others in order to dismiss them.
In just the last couples of posts we find that Dean is
1) an idealist.
2) a totalitarian
3) a syncretist
4) a pacifist (by implication)
Good job dudes! Keep the labels coming! All I can say to Dean is that any time the extremist right-wing “Christians” put the labels to you, you’ must be on the right track.
Meanwhile, “Bore” says that “Dean started a comment with the premise that equality of outcome in economic affairs was the ideal and his definition of justice.” Well, I’ve been around for a while, and I seriously doubt that. If you want to accuse people, please have the minimal courtesy of actually citing the person’s remarks.
“Bore” appears to be a Christian, though he never cites anything in Christian writings to support his position. Gospels? Ever read those? Jesus? Remember him? You know, the guy they talk about in church all the time. You’ve seen pictures of him no doubt. There’s this thing called the New Testament. I suggest you read it and see what the NT says about the rich and the poor. In your view, the poor would be the people who are “not productive.” See what Jesus says about them. See what James says about the rich.
Bore says that “Equality of outcome is not justice; it is the precise opposite.” Is there a point at which inequality becomes injustice? For example, if you had a society in which one person owned all the productive assets, and everyone else didn’t, would that be unjust? Or would we have a country of one productive person, and millions of unproductive persons? Given the increasing inequality of wealth in the U.S., does that mean that the productive people are getting better, and everyone else is becoming increasingly unproductive and dumb? When the monumentally stupid and immoral current occupant of the White House has to be bailed out of failed business ventures by his rich buddies, was he becoming more productive? When he leveraged public tax money in Texas in order to enrich himself and his buddies, was he becoming more productive? In your world, maybe so.
Note 50, You are not being persecuted, your policies are being critiqued
In several exchanges with JBL, I referred to myself as a “bore” because I kept challenging the whitewashing of Islam contained in Dean’s comments.
Dean, you are not being persecuted. Your policies are being critiqued. When you enter in to the realm of debating public policy, you can expect those policies to be debated and critiqued
You have repeatedly advocated an open borders policy. That policy has consequences and it is not un-Christian to point out negative consequences of those policies. It is not un-Christian to want to apprehend criminals at the border. It is not un-Christian to want to stop the spread of disease at the border. It is not un-Christian to want to protect one’s countrymen from mass murder by denying those mass murderers access to one’s country.
You have repeatedly refused to grapple with the reality of what Islam teaches. You have evaded the truth and accused those who bring up the truth about what Islam teaches as un-Christian. I have repeatedly stated that I would support negotiations with the Muslim world, but, those negotiations have to be based on a realistic assessment of what Islam teaches. I am greeted with arguments like “not all Muslims beat their wives.” What a relief to know that. You cannot refute that Islam officially teaches that men have the Koranic right to beat their wives and those do not are simply declining to exercise their privilege. Wife beating is just the beginning. You have never acknowledged the truth that Islam does not allow freedom of thought and as such, it is a ideology in direct conflict with the West, and with our constitution
You have expressly excused the violence of the Palestinians with no qualifications.
You do, in fact, support the concept of equality of economic outcome. You have stated that many times on this blog. Equality of income cannot be achieved without the co-ercive power of the state. The economic polices you have advocated have been given their full range in socialist and communist countries and we know what the outcome of that experiment has been.
You have rejected the notion that private charity is an appropriate response to the Christian duty to help the poor and have insisted that instead, the government must assume that role.
So, we disagree, but, you are most assuredly not being persecuted.
The “unkindness” of border control
Dean has openly stated that restricting access to the United States is “unkind.”
Just a few days ago a Houston police officer was shot by an illegal immigrant. The murderer’s first trip to the United States had resulted in a conviction for child molestation. He was deported to Mexico and returned again. He had little difficulty evading our lax border control. He was in the back seat of the police car when he pulled a hidden gun and killed the police officer. The officer was a husband and a father of five.
What was the “unkindness” here? I think the “unkindness” was to the police officer, his family, the people of Houston who were exposed to this criminal. A criminal that America had every moral right to exclude and yet due to powerful economic and political interests was allowed back in the country. Democrats want new voters, Big Business wants sub minimum wage labor.
Dean has decided the Christian kindness means lax border control. I think that Christian kindness means protecting the innocent from criminals. I think that Christin kindness means supporting the efforts of low-skilled American workers to earn a living without competing with people who will work for 35 cents an hour.
Note, not all illegal immigrants are murderers, but, they are all law breakers. They all break a law to cross the border, to take a job illegally, to work below minimum wage, to work “off the books” for cash without paying taxes. Illegals represent a substantial percentage of the American prison population, they are there not for immigration violations but for standard crimes. In fact, some of the worst criminal gangs in the world have entered our country from Mexico. They are bad enough that an Los Angeles police official called the influx a “national security issue.”
Yet, Dean would call me ‘un-Christian” for wanting to stop the damage to my country resulting from lax border control.
Note 50, Refusal to acknowledge the truth is not Christian
Dean writes:
It is a bit surreal to have to remind people on a blog that purports to represent the teachings of Jesus Christ, that bigotry and hatred against other human beings is wrong. It is wrong even if those human beings are members of a faith whose beliefs we do not completely agree with. Since it is a pleasure to be persecuted for Christ, I accept your hurtful insults and gross distortions of my comments as part of process of witnessing for my Savior
My disagreement with you is based on your denial of the truth of what Islam teaches. By denying that truth and accusing those who bring the truth to the light of day as being unChristian you become an intellectual collaborator with the jihadis.
This is how discussion about Islam is shut down by allegations that the bearer of unpleasant truths about Islam is unChristian or racist.
In the course of what you call “witnessing” I would like to remind you that you have absolved the Palestinians of moral responsiblity for their unspeakable violence and terror. Some witness
Note 50
To build on what Missourian has already said:
“It is a bit surreal to have to remind people on a blog that purports to represent the teachings of Jesus Christ”
&
“I announce proudly that Jesus Christ came to preach a message of love and not hate.”
Perhaps pride (the mother of all the other sins) is the root of our disagreements here Dean. Your pride leads you to false conclusions, like Missourian and I “hate” Islamic people, and perhaps yourself. It also seems to lead you to a sort of arrogance, as if you have to “remind” us about our Lord and His Commandments. The Love of the Lord is not untruth, but Truth itself. What we are saying is that your philosophy that is NOT informed by the Lord leads to certain erroneous conclusions. We disagree about human nature, and thus what it means to “dialogue” and even to “Love”. To simply fall back to “well, I Love my enemies and you don’t” is lazy IMO…
Dean, you continue in the fallacy that to be Christian demands a certain political agenda–yours. Therefore anyone who disagrees with our political agenda is unChristian.
From an economic standpoint equality of ecnmonic outcome results in zero economic activity. Also advocacy of policies the promote equality of outcome assume that econmics is a zero-sum game. It is not. That is what the Mercantilists of the 16th century thought. Many of the great European wars were fought on the basis of the incorrect assumption that there was only x amount of economic wealth to go around, therefore if someone grew in wealth, it reduced my wealth. The global economy you so blythely tout as a way to civilize the jihadists is built on a far different assumption, the capitalist assumption that work creates wealth which can then create greater oppourtuinties for more work, therefore more wealth.
We have a Christian responsibility to give to the poor in a kenotic way. What that means is left up to each of us. Although I have no doubt that none of us here on the blog are doing it yet, or we wouldn’t have computers in our homes or be using the resources of our employer instead of our own.
As you have proved repeatedly, politics always divides and never unifies. The historical Christian response to Islam has always been to at first leave them alone, then when the attacks from Islam get too oppressive we fight them. However, to fight them there has to be a unified fondation from which to fight. Christianity can supply that. However, when politics is substituted for Christ, we are only further divided. That goes whether one is a “liberal” or a “conservative” or any other political philosophy. A united polity will result in a united political response. In the past, the jihadists have been defeated by monarchs. It remains to be seen whether a democratic state can effectively stand against a tyranny that is not motivated from the top down, like communisim, but is inculcated in the hearts and minds of the populace itself.
#54 I miss Cassandra
Michael: All I have to do is open up the morning paper to see that the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding our response to our enemies, have a real-world, political applicability. According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate, the problem of terrorism is worse now then it was five years ago. Furthermore the worsening is in large part the result of the aggressive policies our nation has chosen to pursue, as we have opted for military rather than diplomatic solutions.
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
Radicalization in the Muslim world is the real problem, not the islamic faith itself. We have to carefully ask ourselves which of our actions contribute to that radicalization and which can serve to diminish it. Certainly the perception in the Islamic world that there is an organized attempt by the West to establish a military presence in their lands while also attacking and demonizing of their faith very strongly increases the liklihood of Islamic radicalization. We can diminish this radicalization on the other hand, by simply behaving as our savior taught us, with kindness, respect, restraint and understanding.
Dean, think this through. The conflict is inevitable. This is a given. If you think that Islamic radicalism was not on the rise before Iraq, well, you are living in dream land. Now, if you believe that a policy of containment is better than confrontation, well, then stop opposing oil drilling in Alaska and support nuclear power. That would lessen our dependence on mid-east oil in five years. If you think conflict is inevitable, then a good case can be made to force the conflict on our terms. This is done all the time. Think of it as an intervention. Even if you think Iraq is a mistake, what the leaked report reveals is nothing that will not happen anyway at a different time or place. It is simply the nature of conflict. Besides, part of the report that was not leaked said that a defeat in Iraq would lessen, not heighten, terrorist resolve. (The NYT apparently did not receive this or ignored it.)
Your “diplomatic” solutions were tried during the Clinton years when terrorism was regarded as criminal actions. All it did was embolden the terrorists. You will have to face the fact that sooner or later confrontation would have, and will, come. Again, think of 9/11. The Clinton administration ignored every sign. What makes you think returning to that policy will appease the terrorists?
Further, your distinction between Islamic terrorists and the Islamic faith is not as wide as you think. You argue consistently that anyone who denies an irreconciable difference between the two is guilty of collapsing them both into an indistinguishable whole. But that’s the progressivist technique. Argue against your opponent by attacking their character (in this case your opponents are closet war-mongers) rather than submit to a reasoned examination of ideas. Missourian has gone to great lengths to illustrate the connections but you keep making the same assertion again and again and again as a response. Don’t you wonder why the approach is not getting much traction here or in the larger culture anymore?
And again, why should we believe the Progressives? They ended up on the wrong side of the great conflicts almost every single time.
Dean, No free speech in Islam: Free speech a foundation of the West
The key difference of opinion between Dean and myself on Islam is pointed out by this statement:
Dean has decided that Islam itself is “not the problem.” However, he has no factual rebuttal for the clear fact that Islam is a well-defined, well-documented system of laws which clearly and unambiguously prohibit free thought, free speech and freedom of religion as we know those values and rights in America. This is simply a fact which can be documented by hundreds of sources. This is not simply a matter of arguing about medieval religious texts, this is something which can be documented in today’s world.
Since intellectual, political and religious life in America is founded on the protection of free thought, freedom of conscience and free speech we have a fundamental conflict with Islamic culture.
So the concept of “radical” Islam is useless and misleading. While I would be relieved to learn that a particular Muslim would not use force to advance his religious ideas, the fact remains that Islam does not allow free discourse concerning itself.
One cannot square the circle. Sharia and the Constitution are not compatible. Pointing out this critical difference is not demonization of anyone. It is a sober look at the facts of what a ideology teaches about itself. These are facts that Dean simply refuses to accept as true. Those who advance those facts are accused to fomenting strife. This is false.
In addition, Dean accuses those in the West that are trying to help Christians an non-Muslims persecuted in the Muslim world are also classified by Dean as “fomenters of strife.” In a very real sense, the actual policies advocated by Dean require a thoroughly unprincipled and dishonorable peace that betrays the suffering of non-Muslims and the rights of women.
Obscuring the truth is not a Christian virtue. Wishing away real conflict between sets of ideas does not advance peace between people. An honorable peace can only be based on truthful interaction with Islam.
Father: I find your ideas truly frightening. The question is not whther conflict is inevitable, but whether it will be against small, isolated bands of fanatics, or entire nations whose moderate regimes will become destabilized and then replaced by radical Islamists, some armed with nuclear weapons. Your approach, behaving as though the cataclysmic clash of civilizations is inevitable, actually wanting it to happen, and doing nothing to avoid it, virtually ensures the latter outcome.
The key to peace is supporting and strengthening the moderate regimes so we can partner with them to destroy the most dangerous of the radicals.
You should be more frightened by the Islamic Jihadists.
Somewhere in the Islamic world there is likely a counterpart to Missorian selectively quoting people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and telling is fellow Muslims that their comments are representative of what the entire Christian world believes.
There are plenty of Islamic voices of moderation that Missourian declined to quotes, Two years ago Fox News reported on the efforts of Muqtedar Khan, director of International Studies at Adrian College in Michigan.
Moderate Muslims Speak Out
Note 63. Dean, did you read the article? These moderate Muslims organized to de-radicalize other Muslims. Their existence and goals affirm Missourian’s points, not yours.
Note 64, Weighing and evaluating “quotes” and making rational policy
Dean, you fail to distinguish among various “quotes.” Not all quotes are equal in importance or significance when the American people are deciding what policy they should adopt. I explain the distinctions below:
Islamic sacred sources: I have supplied quotes from sources which Muslims consider to be sacred and controlling on them as believers. These quotes come from the Koran, the Hadith. You have never engaged them.
Living Islamic theologians: I have supplied quotes from living, leading Islamic theologians, such as those that teach at Al-Hazar, the most respected Islamic theological school in the world for Sunni Muslims. These people are the theologians that Muslims worldwide consider authoritative and to whom Muslims worldwide look for guidance. I have supplied a quote from the current lead imam of the Great Mosque in Mecca. This person is the closest that Sunni Muslims have to a Pope.
Living Islamic leaders: I have supplied quotes from Muslims who command the allegiance of millions of Muslims such as Abu Bakr Bashir. What this gentleman says counts a great deal because millions of Muslims will follow his direction.
Existing legal codes of Muslim countries: We can look to the legal codes of today’s Muslim countries to see what Islamic societies are like and what their laws hold. Those laws imitate to a large extent the teaching of the Koran. For instance, there is no religious freedom in Muslim countries. This is a fact, not a demonization of anyone. Anyone from Pakistan will tell you that you cannot “defame” Islam or Mohammed without risk of arrest and physical harm from other Muslims. Unlike Abu Bakr Bashir, these Muslims do not command a following of millions.
Ecumenical Muslims and “Reformer Muslims” A few “Muslims” show up at the local Episcopal Coffee Clatch on Sunday afternoon. They may have all sorts of ideas about “reforming Islam.” Good for them. They are in physical danger from other Muslims. They represent 0.0001% of all Muslims. They are not supported by any government, as Hizbollah is supported by Iran. They do not have militias as Islamic Jihad has. They do not command a radio station like Al-Jazeera. They are not funded by Saudi Arabia as CAIR is.
Ecumenism as an opportunity for “dawa” Dawa is Islamic prosyletization. It is heavily funded in the United States by Saudi Arabia. Oddly enough, some Christian groups are ripe for Dawa because of the weak Christology of the Christian group. The UMC has diluted Christian tradition to the point where many clergy do not consider Christ to be essential to salvation. The UMC allows this to be taught and it literally opens the door to many existing members of UMC to listen to Islamic Dawa.
Islam allows “taquiyya” for when dealing with non-believers. You don’t want to take into account the fact that the motivation of the Muslims that show up at Christian ecumenical events may not be above board.
Note 64, Don’t use America as a “reform school” for Islam, it costs American lives
Dean is just thrilled at the idea of inviting in Muslims so that they can “reform” Islam. He doesn’t really like the Islam that allows wife-beating, polygamy, stoning for adultery, death peanalties for homosexual conduct, and which prohibits free debate concerning Islam. Dean’s admitted tactic is to invite Muslims here and “whooosh” the amazing transforming power of America will cause Muslims to cease being Muslims and cease heading the teachings of the Koran.
Dean fails to acknowledge the today’s academia condemns the idea of cultural assimilation and considers that immoral. So today, for the first time in American history, there exists a reasonably powerful force against assimilating immigrants. This works strongly against Dean’s strategy.
Islam is not part of the founding philosophy of our country. The teaching of Islam is in direct opposition to our Constitution. We have suffered many attackes inside America besides the two World Trade Center tragedies. We have mentioned the El Al attack, the Seattle Jewish Federation Attack, the North Carolina State attack, not to forget the assassination of Bobby Kennedy by a Palestinian unhappy with American support for Israel.
Dean, you have a duty to weigh all the effects of any policy you support. You have no right to risk American lives by inviting more Muslims to this country.
Muslim oppose us not because they don’t understand us. They oppose us because our Constitution is in direct conflict with Islam and they cannot both co-exist. As more people in the world are exposed to American prosperity and American success, the failuire of their culture becomes more and more apparent. However, Mohammed told them that the proof of Allah’s approval is their relative success in this world. He attributed his militlary victories to Allah’s favor. Our success is a refutation of Mohammed’s promise to Muslims that they would rule the world.
Note 63, No Christian has the right to martyr someone else
Dean, you don’t have the right to decide that the people killed in the Jewish Federation Offices in Seattle should be martyrs for your “reform Islam” agenda. You can only risk martyrdom for yourself,not others.
All of your policies require other Americans to be martyrs.
You require low-skilled Americans to give up the protection of the minimum wage so that illegal Mexicans can come in and take jobs at 35 cents per hour.
You require Jews and other non-Muslims to continue to risk death at the hands of Muslims so that you can conduct your “reform of the Muslim world” in our country.
You propose an enterprise the Kemal Ataturk was unable to accomplish with an Army and dictatorial power.
Who is at risk for these policies? Americans. Americans will suffer as a result of these people.
Please confirm yourself to sacrificing what you personally have a right to sacrifice. Stop offering to sacrifice my country to the evil and insanity of Islam.
Dean, please take your cataclysmic Islamic reform to some other country I don’t want to live through it in mine
Dean offers our beautiful, peaceful and properous country as a laboratory for the reform of Islam. Thanks Dean.
Remember the wars that swept Europe after the Prostestant Reformation? The theological revolution advocated by Luther sparked centuries of war. Do you think that you can reform Islam in America without resistance? How do you think that resistance will manifest itself is not through violence
Some analysts believe that the entire Islamic upsurge is a last ditch attempt by the orthodox Muslims to keep Islam from being made obsolete by the march of progress and to keep it from being abandoned and reformed to more closely match the mores of the secular 21st global society.
Note 69 Former Catholic heads Canadian Muslim group
A prominent Muslim group in Canada is headed by a former Catholic. Perhaps if Christian clergy informed themselves of the main tenets of Islam and informed their parishioners there would be fewer Christian/Islamic converts.
Perhaps Christian clergy should understand how Islam differs from Christianity before they try to patch up some intellectual crazy quilt with the theme of “what we have in common.” Tell too many Christian too many times that we have “so much in common” and maybe they will find it easier to abandon the Faith.
Islam is a heresy of Christianity and Judaism and Islam was conceived as a replacement for them. Mohammed claimed that Allah was disgusted with the “corruption” of Christianity and Judaism and that Mohammed was sent to correct that with Islam. Muslims are skillful at using Islam’s faux veneration of Jesus as a wedge for Christian/Islamic conversions. It makes converting to Islam seem like less of a betrayal of Christ because after all Islam honors Jesus. Therefore people raised in the Judaeo Christian tradition are perhaps more vulnerable to dawa then say….. Hindus or Buddhists or Sikhs.
Remember Pope Benedict XVI made a speech pointing out that Christian theology harmonizes revealed Truth and reason. Islamic theology states that Allah transcends and overrules reason. Therein lies a cavernous intellectual gap, something Christians need to understand.
I concede I don’t have the theological training to understand Pope Benedict’s essay fully on my own. I am relying on commentators whom I trust do understand it..
Grown up, responsible people are concerned about how America can maintain it’s democracy while avoiding World War III. The conservative Muslim-haters, offer no other vision of the future than endless war abroad and further political repression at home. In one of the saddest days in American history I can remember Congress is voting today to authorize torture, repudiate the Geneva Conventions and rescind the right to Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review.
How would we confront the Islamic countries the Muslim-haters want to make war on? What is their plan? The fact is that they have no plan except a bloodbath strategy of more slaughter like we have seen in places like Fallujah and South Lebanon.
Robert Parry writes:
How to Avoid World War III
As the recent CIA National Intelligence estimate makes clear, the Bush adminsitration’s militaristic approach to combatting Islamic radicalism has made the problem of terrorism much worse, and has been the equivalent of fighting fire with gasoline. An aggressive, militaristic US response is exactly what Bin ladin has been hoping for.
Robert parry writes:
How well prepared is the United States for the highly, sought-after right-wing goal of “World War III: America versus One Billion Muslims?”
National Insecurity
More National Insecuity
“Grown up, responsible people are concerned about how America can maintain it’s democracy while avoiding World War III.”
Which is why Dean rarely confronts what Missourian or Fr. Jacobse is saying – they are not grown up like him…;0
“for the highly, sought-after right-wing goal of “World War III: America versus One Billion Muslims?””
Again, a gross and intentional mischaracterization. I would accuse him of ignorance but Dean does actually seem to read Fr. Jacobse’ posts (and occasionally possibly Missourians).
Dean, if you are going to simply lie, spare us and post at http://www.progressive.com – or maybe talk to someone about your bad habit. You will be glad you did…
Dean writes:
Well, not prepared enough if the document dump you provided is believable and assuming the premise of your question is valid (it isn’t). There’s a touch of irony though in a Progressive complaining that the military isn’t prepared enough to wage war when any kind of increase in military preparedness is met with a barrage of invective about rising militarism and the like from the Progressive wing.*
Put another way, we know what you don’t like Dean (no doubts here), but you provide few reasons why.
*The captivity of the Democratic Party to the radical left (the progressive political and cultural agenda for the most part) is one reason why they cannot mount a credible critique of the Bush administration. My hunch is the Democrats won’t gain much at all in the election next month. They just don’t have the ideas. This harms the country because it needs a loyal opposition. I’ve waited years for a jettisoning of the radical wing, but I am not sure anymore if it ever will come. We may be witnessing the Democrat party in an irretrievable state of permanent decline.
One reason is that the Muslim threat is religious in nature; something Progressives have a hard time getting their heads around because their secularism (and hostility towards almost all things Christian) precludes any kind of religious factoring in cultural and political analysis. The constant disparagement of Fawell, Robertson, etc. marks their frustration over not having the proper vocabulary (and perhaps the conceptual apparatus) to speak to the religious dimension of the new conflicts. Imagine the anger in the Progressive ranks that the irreligious arrogance cultivated all these years has become their greatest liability because it renders them unable to provide anything of lasting value to the discussion. They hate Robertson and other prominent Evangelicals, but the truth is that these Evangelicals have more to say than they do. They increasingly sense their own irrelevance, even impotence. Expect their invective to get even hotter.
James Carville said a few weeks ago that if the Democrats cannot gain significant ground in the current political climate, they need to reexamine everything they stand for. He gets it.
Note 71, Dean, straight question, are you accusing me of wanting war with 1.2 billion Muslims?
Please answer. If not me, then specifically who do you think is itching for war.
Note: I have repeatedly stated that I would be willing to engage in negotiations with the Muslim world but only on a realistic basis and NOT at the price of betraying non-Muslims suffering in the Muslim world or the rights of women and gays. [Yes, gays because I don’t think they should be subject to the death penalty anymore than adulterers should be stoned. So to that extent I support “gay rights.”]
2nd Note: I support efforts like those of Pope Benedict to engage the Muslim world in “dialogue.” However, my support is based on the courageous honesty and directness of the Pope’s approach. He is asking the Muslim world to grant the same rights to non-Muslims in the Muslim world that Muslims demand for themselves in the West. Bravo and keep safe, Pope Benedict.
3rd Note: Glenn and I discussed what could be called a “containment” policy with respect to the Muslim world. It required a tough policy denying the benefits of trade, commerce and contact the West to any Muslim country which did not purge its secret service of jihadis and shut down its madrassas.
If the West withheld entry privileges, educational privileges, commerce, trade, military assistance and the like the Muslim world would grind to a halt.
The Saudis don’t have the technical expertise to run their oil fields. The Iranians cannot repair their Boeings. We do have energy alternatives that are controlled by American alone. We have enough coal to fuel all our industry and it can be proposed in a clean manner. A system of recharging stations for electric cars would cost less than $18 billion dollars, a pittance in today’s federal budget. Not easy but doable and it would end this conflict within 10 years or less.
Dean you quote:
I submit to you that this is largely due to the secularist policies you still champion that have fostered a “teen culture” that cannot be interferred with because that is oppressive to the teens rights. It is a culture that is full of sex, drugs, misogyny, anger, pain and dehumanization of our children. It has led to both the high rates of bastard children, STD’s, suicide, child abuse, and violence. One of the most shocking things my son ran into during his time in basic training in the Coast Guard was the high rate of focus among his shipmates on sex, drugs, and non-Christian spirituality. Some of my son’s commanding officers were suspicious of his stated motivation that he just wanted to serve his country rather than get the bucks for school and get out.
I am beginning more and more to like Frank Schaffer’s proposal for universal service with a military opt-out option, no exclusions period.
Michael I’m a bit more partial to Robert Heinlein’s idea that only veterans should have rights to citizenship.
JBL writes: “Michael I’m a bit more partial to Robert Heinlein’s idea that only veterans should have rights to citizenship.”
You’re either going to have a few citizens, or a hell of an army. In 2000 there were around 10,400,000 males aged 15 to 19. Divide that figure by 5 to get the approximate number of 18-year-olds, and you end up with around 2 million. If you include females, double that. With a two-year enlistment, that means that the military would have 4 million men in service, in addition to the people who opted for a longer period of service.
We currently have around 1.4 million in regular forces. I couldn’t really find a solid figure on all reserves and National Guard, but I came across the number 1.3 million a couple of times — which seems rather high to me, but maybe so.
In any case, I ‘m not sure what we would do with such a military. I suppose massive human wave attacks would be one route. All those folks would have to be trained and equipped. Unless they are going to walk everywhere, you’ll need a huge increase in the number of military vehicles. I don’t think that such a military would be supportable. And it would no doubt lead to a conventional arms race around the world, as the rest of the countries begin to speculate on what what our intentions are that we need such a huge military.
Another thing to consider is that people in the military are not productive, in the conventional sense. They aren’t manufacturing commercial products. Most of them aren’t learning easily-marketable skills. You don’t see too many employment ads in the newspaper looking for people skilled in the use of the M203 grenade launcher. There aren’t many ads for bomb loaders or parachute packers. While our kids are deferring their futures for two years, other countries will continue to educate and manufacturer.
Speaking of which, I think it’s great to beat up on the Muslims, because I’m not a big fan of Islam anyway. But the big competitor is China. Some people are now beginning to predict that the Chinese will overtake the U.S. in economic dominance in another twenty or thirty years. It is not at all clear how long the dollar will continue to be the currency in which oil is transacted, nor is it clear how long the Asian economies will continue to want to buy our debt. So things in the U.S. might become very different in the not too distant future.
This has happened in the world before. At one time the Dutch, Spanish, and Brits were world-dominating powers, but no longer. I’ll guess that in a couple of decades we will join them.
Maybe I misinterpreted Father’s comments in No. 59 and mistakenly understand him to say that he would welcome military conflict, but this is what he wrote:
Certainly, we have to be prepared for the worst case scenario – but we should should not accept the worst case scenario as invevitable. Obtaining a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, beginning a phased withdrawl from Iraq, and initiating a dialogue between Christian and Islamic religious leaders would go a long way towards easing tensions. We have to quietly, but firmly confront Saudi Arabia, whose intolerant, fundamentalist Wahabbi religious sect is the major source of hateful propaganda against the West. We need to continue to persuadeTurkey that the benefits of greater economic ties with the West are worth eliminating all forms of political oppression and religious persecution.
Note 59, Deans suggestions have been tried and have failed
Dean most current suggestions have been tried and have failed
Peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis There was a peace agreement with Egypt which returned Sinai and Israel did not obtain peace. There was a peace agreement with Arafat and Israel did not receive peace. There was a renunciation of real estate in Gaza and Israel did not receive peace.
Dean ignores the role of Iran which is succeeding in openly funding and directing a proxy army to attack Israel. Without controlling Iran and Syria there will be no peace for Israel. Dean’s comment ignores the fact that Iran has openly threatened to wipe Israel off the map in the near term.
I don’t have an answer other than segregation and separation of the warring parties. The Palestinians have been given hope from the international community that they can succeed in their goal of annihilating Israel, as was recently called for by the imam of the largest Saudi Arabian mosque. Until the Palestinians give up the hope of eliminating Israel there will be war.
Beginning a phased withdrawal from Iraq. The NIE just released by Bush emphasizes that unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would be seen as an American defeat and would embolden the jihadis still further. An American general recently stated that we needed to “address” the issue of religious militias, particularly Shia militias and that the U.S. would give the Irai government a certain amount of time to try to resolve the issue, but, that eventually the militias had to be disbanded by persuasion or force if Iraq were to avoid all out civil war and hold together as a country. Whatever has transpired we are there now and cannot leave under circumstances which will be perceived as renunciation of our goal
Initiating a dialogue between Christian and Islamic religious leaders. Pope Benedict has done just that. He has received nearly universal calumny from the Muslim world including credible death threats. Dean needs to remember that there is nothing resembling free intellectual discourse on religious matters in the Muslim world which tends to hamper “dialogue.”
Dialogue is a Western concept, it doesn’t exist on religious matters in Islam
From Keith Miller, a MSNBC correspondent, writing about “Pope rage.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14957012/page/2/
Again, “dialogue” is a Western concept with respect to religion. The “Pope rage” episode makes that abundantly clear. Islamic political and religious leaders are urging the U.N. to outlaw criticism of Islam. Musharraf of Pakistan made a speech to that effect just a few weeks ago.
Dean’s suggestions seem reasonable but they do not reflect the facts on the ground. Again, we can have a stable relationship with the Muslim world but we need to take a tough negotiating posture and insist that the benefits of the Western world will not be made available to Muslim countries that do not seriously crack down on their jihadi leaders. It can be done, we have enough power to do so.
Dean, care to identify the “right-wingers” looking for war with the Islamic world?
Would you care to identify an individual or organization that you believe is working for war with the Islamic world in general.?
Can you identify someone?
Can you make reference to quotes, articles or speeches which demonstrate
this desire for war?
If you fail to do so your remarks amount to nothing more than the classic “straw man” approach to debate.
Dean, what do you expect Muslims to do differently as a result of dialogue?
Why would future “dialogue” produce better results than the most recent attempt by Pope Benedict? Remember one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
For instance, Dean, would you expect “dialogue” to result in an agreement from Muslim leaders that they will provide non-Muslims with equal rights in their societies.
Are you aware of Mohammed’s teaching that Islam should have total sovreignty over the Arabian peninsula? Do you expect that teaching to be rejected?
Given the Muslims already have political and religious rights in Europe what do Muslims have to gain by “dialogue.”
Would you expect Muslim leaders to relent on the position that homosexual conduct should be punished by death?
Who would participate in this dialogue and what authority would they have to control and direct Muslim behavior? Certainly the local Westernized University Muslim in Minnesota wouldn’t have the power to control and redirect very many Muslims. Abu Bakr Bashier just might have the power to redirect millions of Muslims. Do you expect him to participate? If so, on what grounds given his recent comments regarding the West?
Answers would be welcome. Remember that lives are at stake, non-Muslim lives that is, like the people in the Seattle Jewish Federation. Those people’s lives and others.
Terror leaders asks for Muslim scientists, Could we stop training them, please?
Bush has just entered into an agreement that will increase the number of Saudi students in the United States to levels above 9/11.
With reference to that, please note the following from the leader of Al Quaeda in Iraq:
Washington Times
Perhaps we could stop training them in our Universities. How hard would that be?
Fr. Jacobse says (note 74):
“I’ve waited years for a jettisoning of the radical wing, but I am not sure anymore if it ever will come. We may be witnessing the Democrat party in an irretrievable state of permanent decline”
I believe the radical left to be a more or less permanent, or rather long term component of the culture. Thus, I think it will always have it’s place in the Democrat party. Similarly, I think the libertarian business interests in the Republican party to be long permanent/long term feature. The radical left vs. classical liberal in the Dem’s have been around since at least the 1930’s in a fully developed form (think Huey Long vs. Roosevelt) – at least that is the limit of my historical knowledge – I think it probably goes back long before that. Same on the Repub’s side. I think this merely reflects the culture, or at least the part of the culture that is active in governance.
Because of this, and because of the undue influence of the radical left on the Dem’s and the libertarian’s on the right, I look for a third party. I just don’t see their (radicals and libertarians) influence waning any time soon. Bush’s prescription drug giveaway, and Kerry’s nomination, proved that when it really comes down to it the radicals and the libertarians control the important issues/moments.
Now, as you point out, an outside influence (e.g. Islamic immigration / invasion) may be the catalyst to upset this rather steady boat…
Newsweek’s Moderal Muslim Complains that the West insists on its freedom of expression
Here is a quote from a Muslim which Newsweeks describes as “moderate.”
There it is in a nutshell. The clash of civilizations turns on the most fundamental value of Western society: freedom of expression.”
Note 86 Source for Quote
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15047857/site/newsweek/
This is the source of the quote from Newsweek in Note 86
What makes a Muslim a moderate?
The “moderate” Muslim quoted by Newsweek has asked the West to give up its freedom of expression. Admirable honesty there. Let us assume that this individual would not personally use violence to advance or “defend” Islam. Does this make him a moderate? He has not renounced the Islamic concept that Islam may not be made the subject of free debate by all but mush always be referred to in respectful and reverntial tones.
What features of Islam must a Muslim renounce before he is take out of the “extremist” category and placed in the “moderate” category. Clearly renouncing violence in the service of Islam is not enough. At a minimum they must renounce the right to control speech and thought regarding Islam.
Beyond the minimum I would expect the following to be renounced:
Gender apartheid
Wife Beating
Polygamy
Reduced inheritance for women
Limited testimonial weight for women
Death penalty for homosexual conduct
Rape laws which make prosecuting rape nearly impossible
Special treatment for honor killings as in the Jordanian legal code
Dean, I would like some answers from you. Please ask your Persian-American co-worker about these issues and report back pronto.
Missourian, your last post brought to mind two more examples of the total incompatibility between Islam and Christianity: We are taught in the Bible to expect persecution, in fact it is almost to the point that if we are not being persecuted, we are doing something wrong. We are also taught in the Bible to always be prepared to give an explanation for what we believe to anyone who asks in peace and with gentleness. It seems that many Muslims are like the Queen of Heart’s in Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass who went around shouting: “Off with their heads” at the slightest provocation.
I really wish that Dean or any one could explain even one area of genuine commonality that Christianity has with Islam or even with western secular politics. He has yet to respond to my request to him to find one person in the whole history of Islam that exhibits the qualities of a transformed and transfigured life that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox have in abundance. Nor has he offered any recognized leader in the Islamic world who will really engage in the the type of dialog and compromise he desires and says is the solution.
Note 79. Dean writes:
Yes, you did. You responded reflexively, out of your moral impulses rather than with your head like I keep telling you about.
Uh, yes, of course — but isn’t this self-evident? Dean, you are afflicted with the Progressive delusion, ie: the belief that moral intentions justify an idea. The more morally pure a person can prove his intentions to be, the more sound his argument the reasoning goes.*
But it just aint so.
*It works in reverse as well. The less an argument agrees with the Progressive platform, the more morally tainted the holder of those contrary ideas must be.
Note 64, Dean knows more about Islam than Bernard Lewis, Missourian’s arguments match those of Lewis and Huntingdon
Dean has never directly responded to my many posts in which I have supplied quotes from a) ancient sacred sources b) living Islamic theologians holding leading position in Islam c) living Islamic leaders who command the allegiance of millions of Muslims d) living Euro-Muslim politicians who have stated that renouncing sharia is tantamount to renouncing their own identity and more. None of this has been addressed by Dean. In response, I am characterized as “selective quoter.” Note 64. However, I have produced an article from the Philadelphia Enquirer which demonstrates that Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntingdon share my views and concerns. These gentleman, then, must be “selective quoters” of Islam who hate Muslims, lust after war and are working to stir up strife between Islam and the West.
Here is the article. It demonstrates that the arguments that I have been making are, in fact, backed by Lewis and Huntingdon. You can certainly disagree with me, but you cannot classify me as holding a bigoted position.
Published in the Philadelphia Inquirier the title is “Post 9/11 conflicts rooted in history.”
Progressives like Dean condemn fear to block thought, debate, and action
From Frank Miele of the Daily Interlake:
Fear … motivates us to stay away from poisonous snakes, for instance. No one argues against fear in such a case, as everyone knows that self-preservation is a healthy instinct. But fear also motivates people like Howard Hughes to lock themselves up in their room for years at a time and not come out because of a nameless unspoken dread which is not pinned to any real threat. In this case, we can all likewise agree that fear is unhealthy.
The question that should arise therefore in any discussion of fear is not whether fear is good or bad, but whether the threat behind the fear is real or unreal. If we can make that one simple adjustment in our approach to fear, then perhaps we can have a civil debate about our future as a nation and a culture.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2006/10/01/columns/columns01.txt
In practice, Dean has characterized anyone who wishes to examine the facts about Islamo-fascism as “giving in to fear.”
Ignore Europe. He has argued against studying the situation in Europe based on a very flip conclusion that all of Europe’s difficiulties arise from the alleged economic mistreatment of Muslims and therefore all of the European experience can be ignored. Essentially Dean falls back on the materialist, Marxist view of human behavior which claims that economics is the only true determinant of behavior and he ignores religion completely in his analysis.
Ignore Asia, Africa and South America: Dean also ignores jihadi activity in Nigeria, Sudan, Georgia, Balkans, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Thailand against secularists, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Third World Christians in Indonesia, Malayia and Phillipines, Buddhists in Thailand, Confucianists in China.
Ignore the deaths of Pym Fortuyn, and Theo Van Gogh.
Ignore the deaths of the people at the El Al counter, the Jewish Federation of Seattle, and the North Carolina SUV ramage here in America. Ignore the arrests of people seeking to sell stringer missiles to jihadis for the purpose of attacking civilian aircraft. Ignore the arrests of Microsoft employee Mike Hawash who worked with Bill Gates during the day and helped jihadi websites at night. There is nothing to see here according to Dean.
Pay no attention, to do so, to seek to examine the facts and take them into account in formulating policy is to “give in to fear.”
Missourian writes — something around 44 messages on this thread.
As of right now I’m not sure what your point is. That Dean underestimates the Muslim threat? Point taken, although with 5 or 6 million Muslims in the country, it would be interesting to know why we haven’t had more domestic attacks the last few years. I mean, in spite of all the religiosity and Jesus-talk there are more people in South Carolina killing each other than there are Muslims killing non-Muslims in the U.S.
I’m not sure what actionable items we’re supposed to take away from your many essays and diatribes. That we should deport 6 million Muslims? That we should outlaw the Muslim religion or ban Muslim immigration? If so, good luck getting that past the Bill of Rights. That we should all be pissed off at Muslims? That we should embrace one of the most stupid and incompetent and corrupt administrations in the history of the country in the hope the THEY will keep us safe?
Note 92. Missourian writes:
Yes, it is intended to shut down discussion. The “fear” shibboleth presumes a higher moral ground without engaging any ideas whatsoever. This is how political correctness works and Progressives are masters at it. The trouble is, the historical record shows that Progressive thinkers always sided with tyranny. There is no reason to believe that they are not as wrong today.
Jim, even if one grants everything about the Bush Administration that the opponents say about it, it is not even in the Top 10 for corrupt and inept.
Jim wrote,
Jim –
Good question about why we haven’t had more domestic attacks. A shooting here or there, of course, but no major hits like 7/7. In any case, Muslims here illegally should be deported as should all illegals from any nationality. I would also advocate that we should not allow the immigration of anymore Muslims.
It isn’t Muslim terrorism that is the major threat. It is Muslim voting. I met a nice young woman in Liturgy today who is hiding in the U.S. after having fled Belgium. She was a minor government official who ended up in a disagreement with a Muslim cleric and is now being hunted. The government of Belgium capitulated and suggested that she seek aslyum in the United States.
If you keep importing Muslims at a greater clip that prior to 9/11, you run the risk of building Muslim enclaves that will turn into the same sort of area.
I see no point in that, do you? if you chafe at the Christian fundies, then the Muslim variety can’t hold any attraction for you?
Banning Muslim immigration is not a question of the Bill of Rights. You know that. Non-residents of the United States have no rights. They aren’t here. To get protection from the Bill of Rights, you have to be physically present in the U.S. We, as a nation, can exclude anyone we darn well please from immigrating to the U.S. We have in the past, and can in the future. In fact, it is imperative.
Unless you want to bank the future of our nation that Muslims in the U.S. will behave themselves completely differently than Muslims in Europe, who did not turn nasty until they approached 10% or more of the population and sought to impose their will on their host societies.
Are you willing to take that chance?
I’m not.
Yes, the Bush Administration is corrupt and inept. But, the Bush Administration is doing zippo about the immigration issue. Nada. Zilch.
So get behind the immigration issue and take a stand, against the Bush Administration.
________________
Looks like threads can only run so long. Want to continue the dicussion?
Continue it here: On 9/11, an inter-faith reality check -PART II DISCUSSION
New window will open.
________________