Watson: Forget us now, we'll remember you at the election

In every vote, from here on out, whatever the other views (whether you agree or disagree) that famous litmus test must be the attitude expressed toward measures dealing with islamization. Total understanding is not to be expected, but a habit of mind, a willingness to refrain from simply assuming that something called a "religion" must be generally benign, an understanding that a "religion" is a belief-system, that that belief-system requires study (and study not from those deliberately engaged in apologetics or suave and plausible lying), and that one is entitled to exampine all the relevant material, which in the case of Islam includes Qur'an and Sira, and the elements in the Holy Law of Islam (or the Sharia) which regulate the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. And we are further entitled -- indeed required for our own safety -- to see how, in practice, Islam has worked out, how Muslims have conquered non-Muslim lands with quite varied non-Muslim populations (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists) but yet always seem to treat those non-Muslim populations with the same contempt and often, in history, homicidal hatred (as in Hindustan, before it was decided to spare the lives of Hindus so that their revenues could support the Mughal rulers in the style to which they had grown accustomed).

D. C. Watson's letter is a model that can be used by others to send to their Congressmen. You are being judged by this criterion above all others. We cannot stand much more nonsense from those whose duty it is to instruct and to protect us, and who have not, in the main, performed in that regard nearly as effectively as they should have these last few years. There are ways to talk about Islam without using the word "Islam." There are ways to frame things. There are ways to alert people to taqiyya and kitman, to the non-Muslim apologists prompted by third-worldism, hatred of the West, antisemitism (these last three often, not surprisingly, overlap and can be found, for example, in a few of those Presbyterian "clergymen" who spend their full-time denouncing "Christian Zionism" and, naturally, avoiding the little matter of Islam altogether) and -- not to be ignored -- the blandishments of Arab money.

With all of the facts included in this column, how in the world can American government officials continue to ignore this problem?

Hugh: "In every vote, from here on out, whatever the other views (whether you agree or disagree) that famous litmus test must be the attitude expressed toward measures dealing with islamization."
"You are being judged by this criterion above all others."
King replies: So, Hugh - you are making a bold statement here. You are going to ignore the other things like: economy, taxes, foreign policy, domestic policy, enviornment, etc. and simply cast your vote based on a politician's view on how to deal with Islam? Myopic.

Unbridled: "With all of the facts included in this column, how in the world can American government officials continue to ignore this problem?"

King: Er, um, the "problem" as I see it is that 44% of Americans want to restrict rights of other Americans based on their religion. Sounds like what the US did to Japanese Americans in WWII.

The poll was not about "Mulsims in America" it was about "Muslim AMERICANS" which makes them as American as anyone else with the rights and freedoms associated with it.

Watson - Excellent and very useful post. I intend to circulate this as widely as possible.

Hugh has also nailed the problem as far as Islamization goes:

"In every vote, from here on out, whatever the other views (whether you agree or disagree) that famous litmus test must be the attitude expressed toward measures dealing with islamization."

As we have seen before, both gentlemen do an excellent job on this and other sites.

Here in America we have other security problems that need to be addressed. One of the most pressing is that of our borders, especially our southern border, and the agenda of our southern neighbors. Our border isn't secure and our neighbors frankly are not being friendly. I will include these issues in the letters I send to my Congressmen.

Troll alert on this thread.

Pls don't feed the troll (else deal with the resulting poo piles all over the thread).

/just a thought.

King of Intolerance,

Are you mental? First of all mate, simply because someone lives in America does not make them Americans, especially when they believe the Koran trumps the Constitution of the United States.

If you look in this column a bit more thoroughly, you'll see that Watson says that he believes that there are decent Muslims living in America. Since you feel that so many are good, where in the bloody hell are they?

Stop trying to twist words. The United States has a problem with militant Muslim crazies, and if you refuse to admit that, then you're likely one of them. Are you refuting the facts listed in the article.

Your remarks clearly point out that Muslims feel that they can hide behind the guise of "religion" and everything the do in the name of that "religion" should be ok.

You're making a bloody fool of yourself, bloak.

How about you go and play down on New Jersey Avenue in Washington with those who share your insanity, bleedin' ass clown.

D.C Watson:

Terrific letter big guy , a letter similar to yours should go to the Honorable Representative John Conyers of Michigan, who supports CAIR on all their issues and appears to clearly be in their back pocket when they want something.

CAIR was instrumental in getting him to introduce (HRES 288 IH); a bill that calls for respect of all religions ,however Rep. Conyers wording mentions only the religion of Islam in the House resolution which is now in the house judiciary committeee and hopefully it dies there. However the concern is that a bill like this, though it is just a resolution without any legal teeth can gain muster in the house if enough democratic dhimmis' end up supporting it. Also local law makers may see it as a step in creating laws, however not likely that may be since it would be trampeling on our First Amendment rights of the Constitution. Fortunatley Congressman Conyers has very little support for his resolution at this time according to (THOMAS). The other supporters at this time for (HRES 288 IH). are: ---
Represntative-- Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Reprsentative-- Ms. ESHOO, Representative- Mr. FILNER, Representative -Mr. KUCINICH of Ohio,Representative- Mr. MEEHAN,Representative-- Mr. PASCRELL, and representative- Mr. SERRANO)

Just imagine if a resolution like this passed, could it possibly and effetively muzzle people from being critical of a religion such as Islam or for that matter any religion?

Good letter and excellent approach. Good luck!

DC Watson's congressman just so happens to be my congressman as well, and I for one am glad that I have someone like him speaking up about these issues. His letter is indeed a model that we all could follow. The ballot box is the only place we are going to be able to change things. Watson is reminding our "honorable congressman" of the fact that he is an employee of the people.

Hugh: "In every vote, from here on out, whatever the other views (whether you agree or disagree) that famous litmus test must be the attitude expressed toward measures dealing with islamization."
Yup. This has informed the way I vote since 2001. I try to talk to my local officials, town leaders, police, just to see where their heads are at.
Come election season, it may be a good idea to invite candidates to talk to a voting bloc who want to address these issues, to sound them out. It all starts at the grassroots. You can do a lot just by talking to your neighbor and your city council.

Unbridled: "You're making a bloody fool of yourself, bloak"

King responds: Well, to someone who manages to cram two colloquialisms into one short sentence I take this "criticism" as "shite."

Unbridled: "First of all mate, simply because someone lives in America does not make them Americans, especially when they believe the Koran trumps the Constitution of the United States."

King: The term "Muslim American" implies, just as "African American" or "Italian American" implies, a person who is American and prtoected by the rights therein.
In the US, you are free to believe whatever you wish and practice whatever religion you wish.

Unbridled: "The United States has a problem with militant Muslim crazies, and if you refuse to admit that, then you're likely one of them."

King replies: Do how old, tired and senseless your claim is here? "If you do not agree with me, then you're obviously one of them!" Now who's making the "bloody fool" of themselves? For the record, I have already stated, dozens of times, that I am not Muslim.

Unbridled: "Your remarks clearly point out that Muslims feel that they can hide behind the guise of "religion" and everything the do in the name of that "religion" should be ok."

King: No, my remarks are making a clear deliniation between those of whom that do behave as you say, "under the guise of religion" and htose who actually prctice their religion as a peaceful entity. My remarks are also poignant in comparing the obvious xenophobia in this article with the same xenophibia and paranoia with Japanese AMERICANS circa WWII. Obviously, each and every person of Japanese desent living in America was sympathetic to Japan and had to be neuitralized. You are saying the exact same thing here. I think you're a bit too "Unbridled."

King troll proof we have failied to create citizens who ingage in critical thing the knee equvolecies kicks in automatically.
A quvering stack of oatmeal instead of a spine.

DC keep up the effort Someday it may make a diffferance here my latest effort to Mr fancypants

Dear Sir,
I’m having some problems rectifying your “Islam means peace” position with reality. You seem to be relying on advice from persons who, to an outside observer, have little or no understanding of Islamic scripture. Boiled down, the Quran calls for the subjugation and eventual eradication of all non-Muslims.

Now, I know as well as you do that Muslims jump at the opportunity to pull out verses that appear at first blush to promote peace and tolerance, but upon further examination it is merely an appearance. It always ends with threats and death or has nothing to do with how Muslims are to behave. The Quran is said to contain no contradictions. Older verses are replaced with newer verses. This is called abrogation.

Now I understand that you wish to give Islamic states an opportunity to modernize, reform Islam and adopt an attitude of tolerance to apostates and people of other faiths in an attempt to avoid a clash of civilizations. That will not be your legacy. And in that effort I support you with the understanding that you are going to have to throw those of us here in fly-over country a bone.

We need you hear you say that you are against Dhimmitude and that you are aware of Taqiyya.
I had enough respect for Islam to study it when I heard that Islam had been hijacked and twisted, and I wanted to know specifically what the nature of the hijacking and twisting was. I know now that it was not hijacked, and we were lied to, and you are perpetuating the lie every time you say “Islamic radicals” or allow propaganda outfits like C.A.I.R .to indoctrinate our vital national security components like the Police, The Military, the FBI and our Schools.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and you have taken a sharp stick to our eyes. You have put people in high office whose main concern is not dealing with the threat but instead ensuring that those who would threaten us are comfortable and can go about their plans unmolested. You have your minions make pointless pronouncements of unending respect to the Quran, rather than saying it is our policy to flush the Quran every time a hostage is taken or a bomb goes off.

Would our policy been to respect Mein Kampf during WWII? Have you read the 9-11 Commission Report? We are in fact at war with fundamental Islam according to the Commission and anyone else who has studied Islamic scripture. We have been since this nation was formed. Mohammed declared war on the world at second Aqaba. His followers are true believers and are killing today in accordance with his divine revelation. Mohammed was a thief and a terrorist who encouraged his followers to lie kill rape invade other lands and carve out chucks of land for their own to bring Allah’s law to the world to make Islam the dominant political system in the world. All muslims have this goal in the back of their minds .That they will lie about it or you don’t believe it is irrelevant

Recently, you have taken the advice of the think tank hacks at Rand to concoct moderate Muslim advocacy groups and are sending them off to forge a policy of appeasement and lies in an attempt to reform Islam. That’s wrong: Muslims deserve to have their religion unmolested by our intervention. They aren’t going to buy the seduction anyway because it carries no scriptural weight and you don’t have to be an Ayatollah to know this, but you have to have at least read the Quran and I’m sure they have.

They are aware of the effort and will even nod and agree but the bottom line is: It is a waste of time because they don’t care what you say or we say. They get their orders from a “higher” authority and we are an object to be removed and our pleas, threats, conciliation or demands simply fall on deaf ears and are responded to by smirking, lying mouths. No treaty carries any weight and no law means anything but the law of Allah.

Have the courage to good forward speaking the truth in this matter, false claims of bigotry are insufficient in the face of the irrefutable facts of history and current events
Islam provides its own indictment and proves its own guilt with a literal understand of the Quran just as Hitler did with Mien Kampf

The problem with lying about Islam, whether out of ignorance or with a purpose is that you will not be able to form a coherent foreign policy and Muslims are given another pass as to the fundamental problem with Islam, what is written in the “holy scripture”.

As long as their dogma is held in any esteem and embraced and glorified they are permitted to continue their masquerade .They will go merrily along making demands getting special laws, resolutions and protection all the while the literal message of the book remains unacknowledged.
Again, fundamentally, it calls for the subjugation and death of all non-Muslims .
If you don’t address that, no meaningful progress can be made.

Given the recent events in Israel and your determination to do business with Hamas because of their political clout, I cannot support your administration. By doing this you are giving C.A.I.R. an even more powerful political voice in THIS country considering they have known ties to Hamas. They will never allow peace to take place as it is against their ideology to live peaceably with Jews and all other non-Muslims.

I wish you well but my faith in you and your brother due to his actions supporting C.A.I.R. My faith in your administration is flagging badly; send the people out here who respected Islam enough to find out its true nature some proof that you understand the enemy and have not already surrendered.

Our only weapon is truth and education. Placating mollifying and speaking in conciliatory tones about the noble beliefs of muslims, when at the very core of those beliefs is a literal commandment from “god" for genocide and subjugation is not the solution but it appears to be your permanent course.

King Tolerance, as usual, you've ducked the true issues of this thread, mate.

I recall asking you if you refute the comments in this article, what is your answer?

Thank you for the criticism of my grammar, but you haven't responded to the activities of Islam.

(King: The term "Muslim American" implies, just as "African American" or "Italian American" implies, a person who is American and prtoected by the rights therein.
In the US, you are free to believe whatever you wish and practice whatever religion you wish.)

Unbridled: As long as the practices of that religion jive with the laws of the land, which by the way are not Islamic.

Xenophobia? typical Islamic response. If you're not a Muslim, then why do you play the phony race card? Are you married to one? Or are you simply one who fails to see the problems they create. You're stuffed, King.

Phobia is an unreasonable fear, correct?

Doesn't this article point out enough facts to penetrate your melon?

Muslims have it better in the West than they ever would in their homelands. Stop being a troll and trying to defend the criminals Watson brough up in his article.

You have been unsuccessful in your attempt to defend militant Islam. And, if you're not a Muslim, you are at risk here too.

Again, are you refuting the facts here?

Go put your head back in the dirt, you've missed the train, mate. You cannot refute the facts, so why don't you just dry up and blow off with the wind?

Great letter D.C. It is too bad that we must pressure our officials to do the right thing. The government is supposed to "provide for the common defense", not kow-tow to terrorists.

Intersting that Kucinich, one of the supporters of this nonsense, is also the man who allowed the Democrat filibuster against Bush's nominee as Ambassador to the UN, because he was too sensitive for the Ambassador's ways. In Britain, a man with that much loyalty to his party and his leader would be de-selected by his constituency association, or by party headquarters.

DC -

Excellent work! Since you've done the heavy lifting, this will make it very easy for the rest of us to just copy, paste and send. I love it!

We might think about giving a "grade" to our Senators and Congressmen like some other organizations do. We could start with giving an F to all the congressmen and women co-sponsoring the idiotic Conyers Resolution.

Thanks for all your great work!

Rebecca

Scroll down and read about women's rights in islam. I just want to tear my hair out when I see women begging to be treated as nothing.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

Unbridled: "I recall asking you if you refute the comments in this article, what is your answer?"

Let's see, I seem to recall

1. Are you mental?
2. Go put your head back in the dirt, you've missed the train, mate.
3. why don't you just dry up and blow off with the wind?
4. Doesn't this article point out enough facts to penetrate your melon?
5. You're making a bloody fool of yourself, bloak.
6. How about you go and play down on New Jersey Avenue in Washington with those who share your insanity, bleedin' ass clown.

King replies: I reserve my efforts to respond to questions those who deserve it. You deserve nothing more than for me to "boil down" your posts to what they really are: Insulting drivel. You did well for the "Dhimmi" camp. A whopping 6 insults in two posts. That'll be sure to convince me of your intellect and sensibility!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate. Some signs that a poster is a troll:

Dodges questions from other posters
Refuses to give sources
When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts

King replies: I reserve my efforts to respond to questions those who deserve it. You deserve nothing more than for me to "boil down" your posts to what they really are: Insulting drivel. You did well for the "Dhimmi" camp. A whopping 6 insults in two posts. That'll be sure to convince me of your intellect and sensibility!

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 7, 2005 10:57 AM

Unbridled: Yes sir. That's what I thought, I don't bloody deserve your answers because I have insulted you.

You should just reply: (No, Unbridled, I'm not going to answer your questions, because I have no answers. The facts listed in the article are irrefutable, and cannot be denied).

Instead, you argue and defend what cannot be argued or defended.

It's alright, King of Intolerance, people like you are very easy to handle because you have no defence but to dodge the issues, now, off with you, mate.

King Tolerance?

His own name demonstrates where he is coming from. "Tolerance" may be one of the worst traits one can practice. Where is it writtent that anyone should "tolerate" those who hate and want to kill us.

Unbridled has handled "The King" quite handily. DC's facts are irrefutable.

Unbridled: "I don't bloody deserve your answers because I have insulted you."

King: Now you're catching on! Once you learn the basics of civil discussion you can expect to have your questions taken seriously. Until then, its bollocks with ya!

King: Now you're catching on! Once you learn the basics of civil discussion you can expect to have your questions taken seriously. Until then, its bollocks with ya!

Bollocks with me? How do you intend to ruin or mas a mess of me when you cannot answer simple questions?

You are running around the issues, talking alot but saying nothing.

Stop wasting text space with your sappy remarks, mate. Discuss the issues in the thread, or keep your fingers from the board. No, run along before your knickers give you a wedgie, matey.

There's no point in wasting anymore ticks of the clock with you King of Intolerance, you've pissed away your chance to make for honest discussion.

If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't allow rudeness to get in your way of expressing facts. Since you have no facts, you claim to be insulted or offended in order to avoid serious discussion, which again, is the Muslim infiltration and their outrageous expectations of Westerners.

Now again, get on track with the thread, if you can that is.

Hey KT, are you of the muslim faith? And are you based out of Britian or US?

DC, you've out done yourself this time. An exceptional piece of work and we thank you for your efforts. May the seeds you have planted with our government bear fruit for all of mankind.

DC great letter.

I hope that it is read and not just looked at and then a "roll" of the eyes. I have been into many politicians offices when the "roll" is the most physical action you get out of them.

Now bigger question. When are we going to start a lobbying group? This is the type of rallying call around the flag for just this cause.

Like you said Americans are sick of being taken on a ride with no say as to where we are taken.

It reminds me of the EU vote last week. The people voted "no" to the unified EU. So what do the politicians say ? We will keep modifying and bringing it to vote until it is accepted. These politicians are driven by their own agenda.

When will our politicians understand that they are not representing the American people?

So back to the lobbying group. Look at the effect that CAIR has, they have money and the ACLU behind them. A lobbying group might counter the public, and might be able to sway voter booths. Remember 1980 with Moral Majority. This grassroots group was directly responsible for putting Reagan in office, and some conservative Supreme Court Justices. And you don't have to be PC when you are in the booth voting. It would certainly keep CAIR busy.

I am afraid that NO ONE/or not the right one is educating out politicians. And if our politicians are relying on our State Department for information, then I am scared to death.

WHO HAS OUR POLITICIANS EAR?

DO OUR POLITICIANS WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS?

From time to time a poster brings up the case of Japanese internment during WWII. Yes, the United States did apologize for this in the last decade. Some "innocent" Japanese were "interned," in some cases meaning relocated away from the West Coast. Was this necessary? You betcha!

Before the war there were many Japanese and Japanese-American organizations in the United States. These organizations were used to keep make sure that those of Japanese descent were loyal to Japanese traditions and to the Japanese homeland. There were conspiracies and spies, acts of sabotage and surveillance, some of which were thwarted. All of this is discussed in interesting memos and other documents that fairly recently have come to light.

For further information see Michelle Malkins The Case for Internment.

O.K.

Let's just admit it. The navigator on Columbus' 1492 voyage was a Muslim.

But let's remind the educators who've brought this to our attention, that a 10,000 mile miscalculation also makes him an incompentent navigator.

Next.

Unbridled: "If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't allow rudeness to get in your way of expressing facts"

King replies: You get funnier every time you post, especially when I leave you stew for a while!

If you knew how to adress someone, rudeness would not get into the way of expressing yourself, let alone what you think to be facts.

You're a zero so quit whining and go back to watching the boogey men.

Wm the Crusader: "Hey KT, are you of the muslim faith? And are you based out of Britian or US?"

King replies: I am not Muslim. I am in the US.
You?

O.K.

Let's just admit it. The navigator on Columbus' 1492 voyage was a Muslim.

But let's remind the educators who've brought this to our attention, that a 10,000 mile miscalculation also makes him an incompentent navigator.

Next.

Posted by: PRCS at June 7, 2005 01:52 PM

With all due respect, Columbus' navigator was NOT a Muslim. His name was Martin Alonso Pinzon, and he was not Islamic. However, Columbus did use an Arab interpreter, who was Jewish and later converted to Christianity. Nope, Muslims lose again on this one.

King Tolerance, hmmm, that is a very lofty title to bestow on oneself.

Please tell, how long have you been afflicted with illusions of grandeur? Do you have a cape and a tight suit with a big K on it?

Look! It’s “King” to the rescue! Sit in awe as King scours the web, searching for any chance to be recognized as a hero. King, the defender of muslims everywhere. Watch as the PC King fights against all intolerance while looking for the next opportunity to be seen as a savior and a heerow.

Looks like what we have here is a self appointed moralist with a do gooder complex. The heerow springs into action whenever he perceives any sign of societal injustice.

Hey King, do you also make a scene when someone cuts into a line? Do you report license plate numbers to authorities when a driver throws a piece of litter out of the car window? You were probably the little goody two shoes in elementary school that tattled on other kids for passing notes in class.

And now, you come on here and try to lecture about how we should be tolerant of islam and muslims in general. Do you harbor feelings of guilt (i.e. Japanese internment etc.) or maybe guilt of being a privileged citizen, living the dream in the West. Whatever the motive behind your mentality of tolerance, it’s suicidal and destructive to Western culture. You need to get over it and stop being a toady looking for a pat on the back from muslims, that’s assuming you are telling the truth about not being one.

King, are you saving these exchanges for some sort of scrapbook? Or do you always talk about yourself in the third person?

Look mate, you've not made any points, except perhaps for the one on the top of your head.

This is evident by your having to resort to calling me a "zero". I'm not upset at you for that, I'm relieved because of your remarks I wasn't sure that you could count that high.

Again, why don't you address the issues in brought forth in the article? You've swayed away and gotten into an altercation with me, a "zero" as you place me.

Again, ass clown, are you able refute the statements made in the article above or not? You're getting bloody boring, mate.

Shouldn't you now go back under the bridge until tomorrow?

Excellent, Mr. Watson.

At the same time, Iwould suggest you to join/associate with the State Guard Association of the United States,

http://www.sgaus.org/

That's American militia.

Joel Català

I'm the same as you KT except I believe in calling a spade a spade and if that makes me a bigot then so be it. But you'd be hard pressed to find a person with more love for mankind than myself. I don't believe in religion but in humanity and when I see a cancer consuming mankind one shouldn't appease it but confront it, if it is ever to be eradicated. You my friend, will hopefully one day learn this lesson of life. Regards.

Wm the Crusader: "You my friend, will hopefully one day learn this lesson of life."

King replies: I have learned an entirely different lesson. I've learned from the past. I have seen what humanity has done to itself when it tried to rid the world of a "cancer" based on the religion someone practiced. I've learned from the hysteria that led to the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during WWII based on their appearance. What I read here, buried between the insults, is nothing more than repackaged history. Only this time, its all about Islam and how evil it is from its core.
I've learned that conditions have arisen that have in turn bred a radical form of Islam that is most certainly corrupt and volitile and must be dealt with, but I reject that it is the religion, the religion and only the religion. To insist on this while ignoring the policial and cultural facets to why extreme Islam exists is simply making a straw man argument.

I am hated around here since I am the guy with the match....

This letter should be reprinted by all of us and sent to our senators/congresmen,as well as the President.
Also ,it should be posted on the LGF website,for all the lizards to read and forward to our politicians.

Prickzilla,

Just kidding.

But I think the 'educators' aren't.

Prickzilla: one member of Columbus' crew, I think Pinzon himself, did become a Muslim. That was long after the expedition. He felt that the Captain had cheated him of the prize on offer to the first seaman to spot land, and after he had failed to obtain justice, as I recall it, he went over to Morocco and became a Muslim. This obviously has nothing to do with the superiority or otherwise of Islam, only with its suitability as a vehicle for downtrodden Westerners with a grudge - a suitability which we see in action in American jails and in Mexican Chiapas today. It has always been this way; as many of us will know, the infamous Muslim fake, the Gospel of Barnabas, was probably concocted by a fourteenth-century Italian with a similar grudge.

PRCS you're exactly right. There's a big time college try to change history by lying about it.

Paolo

I wasn't aware of Pinzon being upset about any prize. Not saying you're wrong, but the Pinzon brothers owned the three ship fleet, with backing money Columbus had for the voyage. It all comes down to this: Muslims had no part of Columbus' rediscovery of America, period. The State Department has no business trying to sell it any other way.

We can certainly agree on that much my friend, can we not?

Hello-

This is only my second post on this site, but again I am troubled with the style of discourse this site engages in. To begin: I AM NOT MUSLIM, I don't believe Mohammed (insert letters here) is a prophet, and I eat pork. Lot's of it. What can I say, it's delicious.

But I digress. See, I was under the impression that this was a site to keep track of militant islam. It just seems that lately it's descended into simply bashing Islam. Which I have no problem with. My issue is that no one here seems to see the irony in bashing islamic beliefs while ebracing christian doctrine. Find me one action that Islam has taken that Christendom at some point in time has not also embraced? To be sure, the West has actually evolved, but with no thanks to Christianity. In the US, we have evangelicals who also want the government to become more theocratic. I don't care what the beliefs are, or whether violence or our "legal" system is used, the ends are the same. A simple google search of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Senator Brownback quotes will illustrate my point quite well.

Even more worrisome is the fact that no one can post a dissenting point of view without charges of being "a muslim," or having their heads buried in the sand. Look, no one here is debating that this jihad garbage needs to be dealt with and stopped - but lately it seems that a once intelligent site full of interesting discourse has become a ranting ground for preaching to the chior. King Tolerance makes a VERY valid point about how restricting the rights of Muslim-Americans (and he is correct that the very term implies that they are American) is way too similar to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and he is immeddiately called a troll. A troll makes inflammatory posts for no purpose other than to irritate others. It seems to me that KT takes the time to elequently make his point. And stating that 44% of Americans are OK with restricting the rights of Muslim Americans does not a point make, since the majority of Americans were also once for slavery. Doesn't make it right though, does it. But if we can't have a civil discussion without resorting to name-calling, our behavior is different than those who call us "dhimmi" in semantics only. After all, if a point is not valid, it should be able to be defeated rationally. The obvious exception to this rule is religion, which requires the actual cessation of rational thought in order to accept the doctrine itself.

Finally, I read in this thread muslims need to put their religion second to the constitution. I ask you then: when Pat Robertson states that "Individual Christians are the only ones really - and Jewish people, those who trust the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to him," is that not ideologically opposed to your argument that one should submit to the constituion before your religious beliefs, or are we only applying this to muslims? Where is the outrage about this? Further, if a constitutional amendment were made that was ideologically opposed to your religious beliefs would you choose your government or your God? Again, sharia law is garbage...hell, I'll go so far as to say that all religious doctrines are man-made garbage - but that's another thread entirely. All I'm saying is that you can't realistically expect people to give up their faith for the American government, even if their faith is unfounded and toward a religion that is still living in the 7th century. It's no different than trying to convince Pat Robertson that gay people should also have protection under the law. It's against his RELIGIOUS beliefs, so he's not going to abide by any law that says otherwise. I look forward to some good discussion without resorting to name-calling and accusations about my religious persuasions...

Sincerely,
Stephen

Adela: "This letter should be reprinted by all of us and sent to our senators/congresmen,as well as the President."

King replies: I ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO DO THIS!!! What have you got to lose? You'll either get what you want or your letters will show just what a bunch of loonie, paranoid, Islamophobes you really are and the letters will end up in the trash. Get to it and send them letters! Do it!

P.S. I think Bush is a giant douche-bag, too, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I found a list of all of the crew members for Columbus's initial voyage and there isn't an Arab name in the bunch.

Crew of the Santa Maria:
Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus), captain-general
Juan de la Cosa, owner and master
Diego de Arana, master-at-arms
Pedro de Gutierrez, royal steward
Rodrigo de Escobedo, secretary of the fleet
Rodrigo Sanchez, comptroller
Diego de Salcedo, servant of Columbus
Luis de Torres, interpreter
Rodrigo de Jerez
Alonso Chocero
Alonso Clavijo
Andres de Yruenes
Antonia de Cuellar, carpenter
Bartolome Biues
Bartolome de Torres
Bartolome Garcia, boatswain
Chachu, boatswain
Cristobal Caro, goldsmith
Diego Bermudez
Diego Perez, painter
Domingo de Lequeitio
Domingo Vizcaino, cooper
Gonzalo Franco
Jacomel Rico
Juan, servant
Juan de Jerez
Juan de la Placa
Juan Martines de Acoque
Juan de Medina
Juan de Moguer
Juan Ruiz de la Pena
Juan Sanchez, physician
Lope, joiner
Maestre Juan
Marin de Urtubia
Pedro de Terreros, cabin boy
Pero Nino, pilot
Pedro Yzquierdo
Pedro de Lepe
Rodrigo Gallego, servant

Crew of the Pinta:
Martin Alonso Pinzon, captain
Francisco Martin Pinzon, master
Cristobal Garcia Xalmiento, pilot
Cristobal Quintero, ship's owner
Francisco Garcia Vallejo
Garcia Hernandez, steward
Gomez Rascon
Juan Bermudez
Juan Quintero
Juan Rodriquez Bermejo
Pedro de Arcos
Alonso de Palos
Alvaro Perez
Anton Calabres
Bernal, servant
Diego Martin Pinzon
Fernando Mendes
Francisco Mendes
Gil Perez
Juan Quadrado
Juan Reynal
Juan Verde de Triana
Juan Vecano
Maestre Diego, surgeon
Pedro Tegero
Sancho de Rama

Crew of the Niña:
Vincente Yanez Pinzon, captain
Juan Nino, owner and master
Francisco Nino
Bartolome Roldan, apprentice pilot
Alonso de Morales, carpenter
Andres de Huelva
Bartolome Garcia, boatswain
Diego Lorenzo
Fernando de Triana
Garcia Alonso
Juan Arias, cabin boy
Juan Arraes
Juan Romero
Maestre Alonso, phyiscian
Miguel de Soria, servant
Pedro de Soria
Pero Arraes
Pero Sanches
Rodrigo Monge
Sancho Ruiz, pilot

Adela: "This letter should be reprinted by all of us and sent to our senators/congresmen,as well as the President."

King replies: I ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO DO THIS!!! What have you got to lose? You'll either get what you want or your letters will show just what a bunch of loonie, paranoid, Islamophobes you really are and the letters will end up in the trash. Get to it and send them letters! Do it!

Here you go wanker. Apparently those working for Mr. George Bush are thinking the same thing the rest of us are. Well, except for you that is.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44627

"I was under the impression that this was a site to keep track of militant islam.
-- from a posting above.

No, that is not the purpose of this website. Read the description of Jihadwatch. It is larger than that. It is to describe what prompts "militant Islam" -- i.e., what the tenets of Islam actually are, what canonical texts contain them, what possibilities -- if any-- there may be for changing those texts, or interpreting away what have been considered immutable texts. And it is to describe the ways in which attempts are made by Muslims to misrepresent the real tenets of Islam, using such methods as taqiyya and the tu-quoque argument. And it is a place to get a daily dose of examples of "dhimmitude" or the craven behavior of those non-Muslim governments and institutions and individuals who promote the Muslim agenda, whether out of ignorance or stupidity or something more sinister. And there is a whole lot more.

There are hundreds of websites that keep track of militant Islam -- i.e., Islam red in tooth and claw, with the bombs and so on. This website does something different, and continues to point out that "militant Islam" can scarcely be distinguished from "Islam" and that, in any case, there are many instruments of Jihad beyond that of terrorism, or combat (qital), and that all such methods need to be monitored, analyzed, discussed.

Why it should be impermissible for people to express, along the way, distaste for what they have learned about Islam, is strange. Must everyone bit his tongue, every step of the way? Why? If someone chooses to express that distaste, is there some sort of crime of vilipendium, coming from the Justinian Code, that must be punished (as Oriana Fallaci is to be punished for the crime of "vilipendio")? Surely the requirement for such discussion is that a certain form be observed, and that any expressed distaste be linked to, and arise from, specific doctrines and behaviors, or a collection of such doctrines and behaviors. Form, of course, matters: rants and threats are pointless and self-defeating. Appeals to the evidence, and to reason are, on the other hand, always welcome.

Thanks for your reply KT, you make some good arguments some I agree with and others are debateable for another time. I'd like to comment on your statement "I've learned that conditions have arisen that have in turn bred a radical form of Islam". To my knowledge(learned here...thank you Robert), Whahibbism (radical/militant islam)has been around for centuries but had been contained to Arab society and I would say that the only conditions that have arisen recently is the infusion of Petrodollars into that society that has emboldened them in so many negative ways. So please don't infer it is somehow all the west's fault for this clash of civilizations we now find ourselves in.

SR, Jihadwatch does not "embrace the Christian doctrine". There are those of us who are Christian and our postings reflect that fact. There are also Hindus and atheists. We all serve the purpose of anti-jihad in our own way. You will find a friend in Giaour, who shares your hatred for Christianity. I am weary of arguing with people who imagine Christ's people to be evil.

Great letter DC Watson.

I also like Hugh's idea of the "litmus test". Islamisation by deception, stealth, high birth rate and immigration, is sooner ot later going to be the end of Western civilisation. This would be a calamity for the whole world, muslims included, and from which, mankind may not emerge for a thousand years or more. Look at Iran, a once great civilisation succumbing to islam. More then a 1000 years of gone, and still there is no sign of Iran coming out from the darkness.

I have never seen KT so upset. We must be doing something right.

SR~ I fear I have no time left tonight and just read your missive... all I have to say is:

Pat Robertson doesn't have state-sponsored and run tv backing him up each day, Every day, such as the various immams who push Jihad have Each Day, EVERY Day, in virtually every muslim-run government on the face of the Earth.

Nor will he ever.

Now thats a good letter...DC wins again...keep up the good work...

Carolyn, I apologize giving you the impression that I am anti-Christian. That was not my intention. I was just trying to point out the irony of attempting to separate different monotheistic religions that all share the same end goal; that is to spread their respective beliefs to each person they meet. Jihad may have been given a name in Islam, but it happens in each one. However, I in no way feel that "Christ's people are evil." I believe that everyone should have their own path to enlightenment as they see fit. I just have a problem when people use religion to rationalize their actions - be they jihadists or jews or christians or, dare I say, hippies. I'm sorry, hippies just annoy me. And am I alone is disliking the French?

Anyhoo, it was stated above: "Why it should be impermissible for people to express, along the way, distaste for what they have learned about Islam, is strange." No one has said that this should not be permissable. In fact, it should be encouraged. Speak freely! But let's not pretend that Islam has made absolutely no positive contribution to human existance, because the result is ending up like the very people who run sites threatening RS. Ripping spinal cords out and splitting brains?! Are you fu&^ing kidding me? I guess even jihadists have to go through puberty. Of course, I've read some pretty disturbing fantasies on this site regarding what should be done to them. Plus, it seems as though we are replacing individuals with broad strokes of the generalization brush. Has anyone here not had any positive experience with someone who is muslim? If not, I don't know what to tell you except that the vitriol expressed here sounds similar to the same rhetoric I've read in history books regarding blacks, jews, chinese, polytheists, and . I have several muslim friends. One pulled me out of the way of a car and probably saved my life. If he wanted to kill a dhimmi, wouldn't leaving me there have been the easiest way?

I'm not trying to rile anybody up. I just feel nervous that we seem so quick to ignore ignore the principles this country was founded on whenever we are given a new "enemy" to hate. The only way we can win this strange new war is by being an example to masses of people who don't know any other life than under islamic law and an aristocratic hierarchy. When we see pictures of angry zealots rioting in the street over the "Westernization" of their country, that means we are winning! The zealots see the writing on the wall, that the public in general is enjoying the McDonalds and Coca-cola, the Britney Spears albums in the blackmarket, the idea of (gasp) a say in how there government is run...and the zealots are worried because our influence is growing, and it sure does look comfortable on our side of the grass. When arab news shows us locking "terrorists" up in a legal nether-region, when our troops are said to have shot women and children at a roadblock, when they hear stories of troops urinating on a book that, regardless of anyone else's opinion, they consider holy - we lose any gains we could have made through coersion. There is infinitely more to war than physical agression, after all. And to be clear, I agree with most of you: this is a war, unfortunately. Jihadists believe it to be one, so we have no choice but to act accordingly. It amazes me what irrationality can occur from beliefs one holds as irrefutable.

"But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. Be merciful as your Father is merciful. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." - Jesus, SON of God

I do not see jihad here.

SR:

This little history lesson is primarily for you,I don't know how old you are but sadly a majority of the young people in America today are not being taught about the foundations that have made America what it is. It was not founded by Islam but it was founded by leaders who had a strong belief in the Christian religion and the values it taught through the Holy Bible. Unfortunatley revisionists are trying to remove what our founding fathers stood for and thus trying to remove the foundations that we need to define ourselves as we defend the basis on which America was formed more than 200 years ago.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.

It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.

Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."

Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ."

Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?

He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congressof the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."

Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.

Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."

For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!

It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.

Here is the prayer that was banished:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country.

Amen."

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."

Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.

In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.

In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.

The Supreme Court said this: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?

Most of what you read in these historical comments have been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots.

Sura 9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah [Allah is not the God of the Bible], nor in the latter day [atheists, polytheists, humanists and animists], nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited [this includes all people who do not comply with food restrictions and general laws of Islam], nor follow the religion of truth [that means “Islam” and applies to all non-Muslim people], out of those who have been given the Book [Includes Jews and Christians especially], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority [submission tax called Jizzya for those who do not believe in Muhammad and Allah] and they are in a state of subjection [humiliate them in subjection i.e. until they feel the only path for them is to become Muslims to avoid this over taxation and humiliation daily].

Maybe a little bit of jihad here?

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State."

--Sayeed Abul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam p9

He further states:

"It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

--Sayeed Abul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam p24

Great post, Mackie

http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/maududi/maududi.html

Muslim search engine

http://www.musalman.com/

King: The term "Muslim American" implies, just as "African American" or "Italian American" implies, a person who is American and prtoected by the rights therein.
In the US, you are free to believe whatever you wish and practice whatever religion you wish.

The term "muslim American" is an oxymoron, despite your passionate arguments in their defense.
And by the way, the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII was completely justified and prudent. There may have been a few who were loyal to America, but an overwhelming majority were sympathetic to Japan and IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, THEY WERE ALL ROUNDED UP AND INTERNED. Get over it. The day may come when muslims will feel their pain. Traitors should be dealt with severely, especially those who spend their lives plotting our destruction while calling themselves AMERICANS.

Has it ever occurred to you that muslims are the only "minority" group in America that define themselves by their religion? That should tell you how far removed from the mainstream they are. They aren't a race; they aren't an ethnicity; yet they demand to be set apart and recognized by the dubious distinction of their Islamic identity. They cling to their archaic, violent, hate-mongering ideology as if it were a badge of honor, entitling them to an exalted position of distinction.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the people of every religion in America followed suit and demanded to be recognized as Christian Americans, Jewish Americans, Catholic Americans---you get the picture. Muslims need to get over themselves and their vile, medieval blasphemy. They're more trouble than they're worth.

SR-
First of all, you should read the US military report on Koran handling.
There was no deliberate urination on the book. A guard urinated near a vent, and apparently the wind blew some urine back into a cell. The guard was immediately removed from all contact with prisoners.

There have been five incidents where a Koran was not handled "properly" by military personnel.
There were fifteen incidents where prisoners damaged their Korans for various reasons.
Should we send these prisoners back to face a Sharia court as demanded by Muslim clerics? Oh wait, they only wanted us to send US SOLDIERS to face an Islamic court. Muslims "mishandling" a Koran doesn't count, apparently.

BTW, the principals that this country was founded on do not include punishing anyone for damaging a book, however sacred.

The prisoners are at Guantanamo for a reason- they toke up arms against the US military. The last time I checked, such prisoners are released ONLY after a permanent cessation of hostilies has occurred, not before. And we ARE behaving in a decent manner, the prisoners can be assured that they will not have their heads sawn off with a dull knife while US military personnel chant to Jesus.

As far as women and children being killed at checkpoints, there are reams of SOPs soldiers must follow in order to avoid harming civilians. However, given the prevalence of suicide bombers, a car that acts erratically near a checkpoint is a potential threat to our soldiers. They have to make split second decisions, and sometimes they are wrong.
The people who truly are endangering the civilians are those who use tactics with civilians as human shields. See Michael Yon's dispatch below......

"Mosul, Northern Iraq

An American soldier told me today that he has been telling kids to stay away from his unit so they won't be killed. This is harder, on all parties, than it might seem to anyone who hasn't seen firsthand how much the kids here love the soldiers. The sound of heavily armored trucks rumbling through the streets has the same effect on these kids as the tinkling bells of the "ice cream man" back home. Imagine having to tell kids to run the other way when they hear the ice cream truck on a summer afternoon.

Recently, an insurgent hid behind a child in order to attack Americans. The tactic came as no surprise to the soldiers here. Terrorists routinely play wounded or feign their surrender in order to get close enough to launch an attack on Coalition or Iraqi Forces. In January I wrote about one bomber who grabbed the hand of a small child while she was playing on a sidewalk. Smiling, he walked with the child in hand, approaching some Iraqi police, and exploded. Americans standing close by were unharmed.

During the month of May in Mosul, there have been so many terrorist attacks killing women and children--often when no American or Iraqi Forces have been in the area-- that they are barely news. It happened again on Saturday. This time by radio-controlled IED.

Soldiers from Deuce Four happened to stop three cars in the immediate vicinity where explosives were buried on the roadside, and while Americans searched those cars with women and children about, a terrorist clicked the radio switch, and slaughtered eight Iraqi civilians. Three of them children under the age of 10. Other children were wounded.

During the same attack, Deuce Four lost one much-loved and respected soldier who died at the scene. Eleven other soldiers were wounded. Tonight, over dinner, amid the sharing of memories of their friend, came the sad sharing of ways to make the kids stay away on future patrols.

One wonders if the terrorists bother to wait till the funerals to climb on their cars and do their rifle pumping victory dances."

There are certainly many decent Muslims out there, but their voices are faint amongst the clamor of the fanatics.

The U.S. was founded to keep the religious extremists from controlling the country.

The bloody scroll of the history of religious warfare, from Rome against the Hebrews to the latest jihiadists blowing up infidels (whenever they get the urge and the semtex) is convincing enough reason to keep absolutist dogmatists out of power. Forever. The secular imitators of the old 'divine right' crowd (fascists, Nazis, Communists, ad nauseam) have done the exact same work with only the deity replaced by the dream. (Of the Withering-Away-of-the-State; the Worker's Utopia; the Classless Society; ad absurdum.)

Either way leads to megalomania, mayhem, murder and a global death camp.

I prefer freedom of thought.

Islam, which tends to religious extremism ever since its warlord-founder began pillaging his way into history, may be technically indistinguishable from the conquering Mosaic sons of ancient Israel-to-be, or the [not very] 'Christians' during the worst of the Inquisition, -but the Jews and followers of Jesus have finally gotten over their tyrannical urge to exterminate their neighbors in a land grab. Or to convert the 'pagans' by the sword, red-hot tongs, rack, pyre and lash.

I support freedom of belief.

But not the freedom to allow 'believers' to destroy the foundations of the Constitution in order to supplant it with a theocratic creed. Any creed.

Jihadists are following orthodox Koranic teachings, and the resultant Sharia Law, and they thereby want an Imperial Islam to rule the world. And their creed allows them to kill their way to dominion. And to force all who do not convert to Islam to be reduced to serfs. Or, if they are not People of the Book (anyone other than Biblical Jews and Christians), to die.

This leaves me on their theological hit list.

My reply:

Go ahead. Try it. Freedom of thought will always win out over any 'holy' headlock. It has more resources. More ingenuity. More cunning. And, most telling, more humor.

The joyless will not inherit the Earth.

As Heraclitus put it:

Physis kryptesthai.

(Look it up for a cryptic chuckle.)

There are certainly many decent Muslims out there, but their voices are faint amongst the clamor of the fanatics

I often wonder about this silence of the masses. Is it because they are afraid of speaking out, given the propensity for violence and murder of their more fanatical brethren? Or is it because they basically approve of the general gist of what their more fanatical brethren are up to, and look forward to getting any benefits the fanatics will attain?

Call me cynical but I lean more towards the latter than the former. Or at least think that the majority of the silent ones belong to the latter group.

Some people are just more proactive and get really involved in issues. Like people who demonstrate to save the whales, or forests or against politicians or whatnot. Most people can't be bothered to do that, yet support the more active ones, either by donations or just by approving of what they do and not stopping them. I guess you could say this about the "fanatics". They're the ones willing to do the dirty work, to get out there and do something. I believe most of the silent, inactive ones support them, believing they'll benefit jointly of anything the more active ones accomplish or attain. In this case, it's Islam being on top, everywhere, something they've been indoctrinated with since the day they were born.

Yes, great post, Mackie. It was a nice little history lesson for me too.

SR:

"Again, sharia law is garbage...hell, I'll go so far as to say that all religious doctrines are man-made garbage - but that's another thread entirely. All I'm saying is that you can't realistically expect people to give up their faith for the American government, even if their faith is unfounded and toward a religion that is still living in the 7th century. It's no different than trying to convince Pat ..."

SR: Nobody needs to give up their faith 'for the government'- you know that's crap. Mohammedanism is not a "NEW" enemy, its the scourge of humanity since 1350 years. Islam has brought death and destruction to all countries it invaded over that timeframe by wiping out the existing culture for their primitive an backward ideology.

Islam is not a religion, it is a militant ideology in the guise of religion. Islamics kill themselves and others on a daily basis, around the globe, wherever they are. The Koran, the guidebook for terror commands them to do it, their clerics fire them up to do it and if you happen to walk past a mosque after Friday prayers make sure that you don't get whacked.

Immigration of Islamics must be stopped entirely, privileges for this particular group must cease, their Idiocy and their fanaticism must be exposed and they must be ridiculed in the extreme. Whenever they spit on the sidewalk, they should be stripped of citizenship and deported.

SR: I don't care what youre experience with individual Mohammedans are. Mine are not good. I know what they think of us, how they hate us and how they despise our way of life. They have nothing to give, there is nothing they can do to make our world a better place. Nothing.

Why should we have to live in fear to accommodate a criminal organization? That's what Islam is:1350 years of ransacking, thievery, slavery, raids, hostage taking for ransom, death and destruction. Get to know Islam,'beautiful Islam'- then come back and tell us about it!

(Hilarious how KT -kitman&takkiyya- got all fired up about some upcoming changes in US policy. I am looking forward to that!)

BigSleep:
your history is nonsense and your use of Greek is pretentious. Some of us know how to read it, so don't brag. Before the invention of secular creeds, there were no wars of religious extermination in Europe, EVER. The worst that was done to defeated religious minorities was to force them to leave. That is what the famous principle "cuius regio, eius religio" was about. It also meant that almost any religious group in Europe could find a refuge: Calvinists with Calvinists, Lutherans with Lutherans, Catholics, and Orthodox. Even oddballs such as the Socinian Unitarians usually found refuge in places such as Hungary and Poland. That is also what the Spanish eventually did to Jews and Muslims: not massacre them, expel them.

The invention of secularism also brought to Europe a concept that had previously been alien to it - extermination of the enemy. In the French Revolution there was a definite attempt to exterminate priests and aristocrats, although the organization and political will were not up to it. The idea of exterminating those whom the goddess History had condemned, along with the allied notion of eugenics, came violently into fashion in the last years of the nineteenth century, and celebrated its triumphs in Nazi and Communist states. (Fascist Italy was not primarily eugenistic or racist, its borrowings from "modernity" being mainly in the region of programmatic immoralism and the worship of the "Will".) That was how, for the first time in the history of Europe, millions of human beings were coldly and deliberately put to death in the service of an ideology.

If you ask what about the Inquisition, the Night of ST.Bartholomew, etc., the answer is: these are comparable neither in scope nor in degree. The Inquisition, as with all similar tribunals in various Christian states, was dedicated to investigating individual cases, not to destroying whole classes of the population. Even supposing that they killed people (and I would invite you to read Kamen and other recent literature), they killed them individually. The worst inquisitors cannot have killed more than a few thousand people each in their career - the kind of harvest that a Hitler or a Stalin managed on a poor day. Riots of the St.Bartholomew kind are simply the result of civil wars all over the world - find out what happened in New York City in 1863, in a context that had nothing to do with religion.

Were there no episodes of systematic massacre in history before the twentieth century, then? Of course there were. In the late fifteen hundreds, the Japanese rulers tried to exterminate every Christian convert in the country, in ways too hideous to describe. Twelve hundred years before, Diocletian and his co-Emperors, Galerius and Maximinus Daia, seriously tried to wipe the Christian faith from the face of the earth; a hundred years after that, the Persian emperor Shahpur tried it again with the Christians within his borders. None of these enterprises were successful: Christianity triumphed in the Roman Empire, and survived in the Persian and Japanese ones.

However, the worst record belongs to - surprise surprise - our beloved Abrahamic Muslim cousins. Timur Leng, who had a tower built out of thousands of human skulls, is all too typical of the kind of violence that many Muslim rulers great and small loved to indulge. People like Hugh will know more instances than I do, but I have recently read the memoirs of an Eastern Christian from the twelve hundreds, Nestorian Bishop Rabban Bar-Sawma, and I have found at least a couple of very telling passages. On one occasion, as he lived in a small town in Mesopotamia with a Christian population, he tells that "someone came, claiming to have an order from the King to destroy all Christians," whereupon the whole city started rioting and running with Christian blood. Rabban, as a Bishop, knew the king well enough, but he never actually says that the king did not give that order.

Later, the king sent Rabban (who was already a great traveller, having been born on the borders of China before travelling through the then-flourishing Christian communities of much of the East and settling in Mesopotamia) as a sort of ambassador-cum-explorer to the distant Christian West. Rabban left a long memoir, telling of the courteous reception he got everywhere, the strange matter of countries without kings (such as a town called Genoa, which elected all its rulers! - weird!), and the hard, even puzzling theological questions with which he was probed at the court of the Pope. (When the Pope's courtiers saw that he was not up to it, and tired as well, they stopped the questioning and treated him as an honoured guest.) However, one observation that Rabban made really struck me: that nowhere in Europe did he ever find any tract of land that had really been devastated and made desert by war.

This, bear in mind, was the thirteenth century: not a peaceful age. Rabban travelled through Italy and France, two of the most war-ravaged parts of Europe. Yet he never saw anywhere what he regarded as the natural result of war - devastation and desertification.

To this add one thing, going back two further centuries. The author of the CHANSON DE ROLAND knew nothing about Muslims: he got their names, titles, religion and habits wrong. The epic was written before the Crusades and the conquest of Toledo, when for the first time large numbers of Muslims fell under the control of Latin Christians and their customs and sacred writings became known to the West. One thing, however, he was certain about - the thing which is at the heart of the epic: that the Muslims do not keep their oaths. The epic starts with a council of Muslim lords trying to work out how to deal with defeat. The solution they reach is this: let us pretend to surrender to our Christian enemies, give them hostages - then, when they go back to their countries, we will start our war again. Our hostages will be killed, but that is just too bad!

The two things together tell us that the Christian West, as early as as the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth centuries, had developped a definite code of war; a code that minimized the possible harm to civilians, reduced the opportunities for devastation and desertification, and demanded that pacts should be observed, even if they amount to surrender. That is what the author of the CHANSON DE ROLAND is disgusted at: his Muslims are neither willing to fight to the death nor to loyally surrender and accept defeat - they are, in the eyes of this eleventh-century Christian poet, traitors by choice.

Now whatever else he may have got wrong about Muslims, this was one thing that any Christian warrior could discover by experience on the Spanish border. Christian warriors, even in the savage High Middle Ages, saw war as a limited and definite kind of thing, which should not be pushed beyond certain bounds; and Muslims, who at the time had a claim to being the more sophisticated, wealthier, better housed and fed culture, had never learned anything except that war is something that has no limit and no end except in total destruction. Think about it.

Wow, everyone seems to have a different view of how history played out. I guess that's what happens when you have a pre-determined conclusion and want the evidence to support it. As far as the plethora of quotes indicating that "52 of the 55" founding fathers were Christian, I can of course claim that most were, in fact, deists.

See here, here, and here.

There is a distinct difference between the two. "One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420. Here are some other quotes - with Thomas Paine's being among my favorites:

Thomas Paine

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind." -- Thomas Paine, _The_Age_of_Reason_

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."--Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine, _Excerpts_from_The_Age_of_Reason:_Selected_Writings_of_Thomas_ Paine_, edited by Richard Emery Robers, NY Everybody's Vacation Publishing Co, 1945, p.342

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."--Thomas Paine, _The_Age_of_Reason

"The adulterous connection between church and state."--Thomas Paine, from _The_Age_of_Reason_

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law."--Thomas Paine, _The_Rights_of_Man_, 1791, ed P.S. Foner, 1945

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."--Thomas Paine, _Of_The_Religion_of_Deism_Compared_With_the_Christian_Religion_

"As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin."--Thomas Paine, _Of_The_Religion_of_Deism_Compared_With_the_Christian_Religion_

"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."--Thomas Paine, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, James A. Haught

John Adams:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, hae been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.--John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, John A. Haught

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." -- Benjamin Franklin, _Articles_Of_Belief_and_Acts_of_Religion_, Nov.20, 1728

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." -- Benjamin Franklin , _Works_ Vol.VII, p.75

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects of Christianity, we shall find few that have not in turns been persecutors and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution on the Roman church, but preactied i on the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice both here (England) and in New England"--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin Franklin, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."--Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 16:281

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson, _Notes_on_Virginia_, _Jefferson_the_President:_First_Term_1801-1805_, Dumas Malon, Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:546

James Madison

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?" -- James Madison, _A_Memorial_ and_Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison,_A_Memorial_ and_Remonstrance, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project."--James Madison, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN pp 237-238

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE."--James Madison

All these quotes aside...what exactly is anyone here proposing we do about the situation we now face? I have the creeping suspicion that the majority of you think the only solution is to wipe Islam from the face of the earth. If that's the case, we are in trouble - since it is no more likely than them being able to wipe every other religion off the face of the earth. And what about the circumstances that have got us to this point? Islam was not created in a vaccuum after all. Why is it that people are converting to Islam faster than any other religion, in particular in poor 3rd world countries? I would argue ignorance, but it does not change the fact that the muslim population is growing - and fast. So are we proposing that we must wipe out what will soon be 2 billion muslims? How will we do this without the permission and support of the very muslim governments who are just barely hanging on to some semblance of order? We know we can't count on the majority of European countries to help. So I'm hearing lots of complaining, but no action other than writing letters to congress. And I doubt we'll get anything out of a politician. Any thoughts?

SR, I only have a minute but I must respond to your statement regarding Islam being the "fastest growing religion." First of all, what makes you think that people are converting to Islam en masse? Muslims promulgate this lie, as well as numerous others, but where did you get your statistics? Generalization serves no useful purpose. As Ms. Fallaci said in her infamous book, "muslims breed like rats." It's a fact. Abortion and birth control are forbidden under any circumstances. Combine that with polygamy---well just look at the Saudi royal family. Uncontrolled breeding is primarily responsible for the growth of Islam.

I would like to comment on other statements and comments that you made but I can't do it right now. You asked what we intended to do about the Islamic problem. We're doing plenty about it, which I will elaborate on later. Educating the public about Islam is the first step, and this is our most important project. When the American people learn what we know about Islam, the problem will be all but solved. So that's our primary goal. Ignorance is not bliss, especially where Islam is concerned.

Susanp: "And by the way, the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII was completely justified and prudent. There may have been a few who were loyal to America, but an overwhelming majority were sympathetic to Japan"

Can you post some evidence of this? From the Wiki:

Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Ringle, a naval intelligence officer tasked with evaluating the loyalty of the Japanese American population, estimated in a 1941 report to his superiors that "better than 90% of the Nisei [second generation] and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States." A 1941 report prepared on President Roosevelt's orders by Curtis B. Munson, special representative of the State Department, concluded that most Japanese nationals and "90 to 98 percent" of Japanese American citizens were loyal. He wrote: "There is no Japanese `problem' on the Coast ... There is far more danger from Communists and people of the Bridges type on the Coast than there is from Japanese."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment

Where did you learn that most Japanese-Americans were sympathetic to Imperial Japan?

Susnp:

Here, here, here, etc. etc. But the statistics are always malleable. My point still stands, Islam is making headways into many cultures that previously had no experience with it: South Korea, Rwanda, Haiti - even Central Idaho!! Don't ask me why - in my opinion the only good religion is one that requires rational thought. So they are very few and far between.

Great post, Paolo.

Viking, I should have said that an overwhelming majority of non-American born Japanese citizens were loyal to Imperial Japan. I apologise. However, I do not apologise for believing that the U.S. government was justified in taking this drastic measure to protect the country and its citizens. Since I wasn't around at the time, I can only rely on the historical record, which has transmogrified considerably since I was in high school.

Richard Kotoshirodo, a Japanese American, and John Mikami, who was Japanese, assimilated extensive intel as spies, which greatly assisted the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor. Japanese-Americans (Yoshio and Irene Harada) aided a Japanese pilot who landed at Niihau island, Hawaii after being shot down while attacking Pearl Harbor.

Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,

"We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials..."

That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.

A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, "there can be no doubt that most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast."

The U.S. government knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and believed it was still operating after the attacks.

The U.S.clearly could not trust citizens of Japan (or other Axis nations) to remain unsupervised in the midst of a war between the U.S. and their home countries (hence the 11,229 Japanese citizens, 10,905 German citizens, 3,728 Italian citizens and a few others who were rounded up and interned), but American born citizens were a different matter. Most of them were loyal. Curtis Munson, who was assigned to investigate the issue, estimated that 90-98% of Japanese-Americans could be trusted, excluding approximately 9000 Kibei -- Japanese-Americans educated in Japan.
However, Munson pointed out that just a few saboteurs could cause cataclysmic damage to the war effort.

Where did I learn about the Japanese internment during WWII? I learned about it in high school history class first, and in subsequent history courses in college. The latter courses were more extensive, but did not deviate in substance from the earlier courses.

In the case of our loyal, patriotic muslim citizens, I would make no distinction between American-born and immigrants---they're all loyal to Islamic dogma. Islamic dogma prohibits loyalty to temporal governments.

Thanks Susan. The internment of Japanese nationals is a different story, and no different to the internment of German and Italian nationals (which nobody complains about). It was the decision to intern American citizens that caused the controversy, and FDR rescinded the order in 1944, well before the close of the war.