We do have the mechanism to save our country from the demise of Old Europe. Current immigration law bars Communists, Anarchists and Totalitarians by name. The question is whether we have the courage to stand up and name Islam as a form of Totalitarianism.
Islam alone seeks global hegemony and there is adequette theological proof widely available. Islam seeks to place Jim Crow Sharia laws on non Muslims. Sharia is the definition of human rights abuses. Islam places a religious obligation to kill blasphemers and apostates. Jihad is the theft of land and property and is a Central theme of the religion. Islam is totalitarian and we should end immigration from Muslim countries immediately. Contrary to popular belief there is no gaurenteed religious right to immigration.
People funding terrorism in the USA should be deported to the Muslim countryt of their choice or the new emerging one called New Algeria.
Our media has done an abominable job covering the riots. My coworkers who are liberals are complaining that the media refuses to point out who is rioting. Did any of you read about the sons of Allah latest hits burning disabled women in France and beheading Philipin girls. Of couse you didn't see that because underwear on the heads of Muslims is more important.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
People funding terrorism in the USA should be deported to the Muslim countryt of their choice or the new emerging one called New Algeria.
AMEN!!!
Beak, you have a way with words.
How come it is that WE "get it," but that Our Leaders can't? I have an uncomfortable feeling that it's going to be up to us, but I am comforted by my conviction that we'll do a far better job than the French citizens.
Good grief, what does it TAKE for the fully invested Postmodernist to act in his own behalf?
Woah, woah, woah beak. You know I am definitely way farther left than you but I consider myself objective enough to see clearly on any issue. Here it seems you have made a case for discrimination based on religion. I hear you about terrorism and such but you have got some serious misconceptions about the Islamic faith. While some of those who do commit terrorist acts are Muslim, the majority (and you can probably find any study backing that fact up) are not Muslim. I am not going to argue if those who are Muslim make the biggest impact but the majority are not. Secondly, the Islamic faith does not codone human right abuse or Jim Crow Sharia Laws. Wait, I take that back. That might be the case in some of the extreme sects but for the majority (at least those practicing in America) that is not the case.
You know I like your zeal and your writings but sometimes I think you go to far and I feel the need to speak up. This is one of those times. You can call me a pinko or liberal (which I am not) but sometimes I think you do not keep things in perspective.
I have no argument with you on the media's coverage of the riots. I will be honest, I do not follow the media as much as I do six months ago so I do not know if you are right but the reason why I stopped listening to them is because they just do not know how to report anymore (which according to you is still the case).
Bum frm Jersey
Immigration is not a right nor is religion mentioned in the INA . Section 318 expressly mentions totalitarianism by name.
My question to you is a religion that seeks global hegemony by violent means ( Jihad ) totalitarian ? We will disagree there but a case could be made either way.
Sharia divides humanity into believers and non believers. It also has barbaric punishments such as stoning, amputation of limbs and death penalty for homosexuals. Sharia is a human rights nightmare for everyone unfotunate to live under it.
THe average convience clerk is not dangerous but we have no need to take in a potentialy dangerous people. We can take in Hindus, West Indians etc. The only people from Muslim counties who should be allowed in are Christians and other persecuted minorities. We have zer historical obligations to Pakistan but plenty to Hati and the Phillipines.
Cubed I forgot to welcome you to the blog. I am still trying to figure out how Ducky went from Renoir to Jews in Art.
Always Beamish has dubbed FRaqnce New Algeria. French out of the occupied territories in New Algeria. I guess the next thing the rioters will ask is to reshape the Eiffel Tower into a minaret .
I didn't argue that religion was a right and Islam does not preach global hegemony or at least not more than any other religion. If memory serves me correct, Islam is actually heavily based on Christian values. Just because some radicals have devaited drastically from that, it does not mean we should judge the entire religion.
Your point about Sharia sounds very much like Christian ideals except in Christianity some argue you will be persecuted for not believing in Jesus Christ and accepting him as your Lord and Savior in the afterlife. Which if you think about is even worse than being persecuted in this lifetime because the afterlife is for eternity.
We definitely disagree on blocking certain people from immigrating. To take what you said a step further it sounds like you want to restrict movement of certain people. I remember something like that in history happening? Oh yeah, it was during World War II when we had Japanese Interment camps. Whether you agree with it or not, the government, the United States Government, official stance on that measure was that it was wrong to do so. They even apoligized for doing it, not indirectly, but outright apoligized for it.
I know its been a while since you have been to New York/New Jersey but do you remember this statement: 'Give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." It is on the Statue of Liberty. Now, I know the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France and monitoring your blog the past six months or so you have no love for the French, the statement still rings true because its what this country is known for. I said this a while ago on your site. I don't disagree with you that we should keep the bad people out but I don't think we should be casting wide nets judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. I understand that we are in a war but this country has a horrible history of judging groups of people based on what a few people (and often none of the people) did. What you are suggesting sounds like it would just be another example of that and 50 years down the line we are going to wonder if the blatent discrimination of a certain group was worth it. Looking back at history - it never is.
All good points. Bum, I understand where you're coming from but Beak and the other commenters make excellent points about the religion. I'm not sure if you meant what you said "While some of those who do commit terrorist acts are Muslim, the majority (and you can probably find any study backing that fact up) are not Muslim." I think, and feel free to correct me giving you the benefit of the doubt, that while all Muslims aren't terrorists, all terrorists do seem to be Muslim. If you think the other, then I think you are way off base.
Kyle, I agree with you for the most part. I think those who seek to threaten this country should be handled. Whether that means deportaion so be it. What I disagree with you about and with Beak is your indictment that the Islam faith condemns democracy. It does not. Some in the Muslim community says it does but many other Muslims do not hold that same contention.
Esther, the majority of terrorists are not Muslim. Indeed it may appear so if you look at the 10 Most Wanted Terrorist List put out by the FBI but the majority of terrorists worldwide are not Muslim. Lets not forget those in Ireland or South America. In Britian, they consider some Zionist groups (I can only think of the group Irgun off hand) as terrorists. Hey, we don't even need to travel to find non-Muslim terrorists in our own backyard. Timothy McKey was a terrorist and so was Nichols (even though he contends he was innocent). What about the serial shooters down in Washington DC, they are terrorists. I am going to have to stand by my original argument and disagree with you. There are Muslim terrorists but they certainly do not account for the majority of terrorists in today's world.
Bum,
Religion deals with the details of a belief in the supernatural, whether it be God or gods.
A moral code is a set of values we choose to guide our thoughts and actions.
"Religion" and "moral code" are not interchangeable; a moral code is incorporated into a religion, and drives the thoughts and actions of the believers.
In much of the world, no matter who or what the supernatural entities one believes in are, the moral code is more or less based on "human life" as the standard by which good is measured; those things which tend to support human life are "good," while those things which tend to threaten human life are "bad."
I'll not bore you here with the explanation of how it is we determine what a "value" is.
Now; Islam did not choose human life as its "standard of the good." It chose "the spread of Islam." Therefore, according to Islam, any thoughts or behaviors which tend to support the spread of Islam are "good," even if they involve murder and mayhem. Any thoughts or behaviors which tend to threaten the spread of Islam are "bad."
So, it isn't a religion per se that we should deport and prevent from entering the country, it is a moral code which considers anything "not Muslim" as worthy of destruction by any means whatsoever.
Get it?
Bum from Jersey,
John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the Maryland / DC "snipers," were both Muslim and active within a radical sect of Islam here in the US, and yet you'd have to dig into their publicly available court documents (online) to discover just exactly what it is the media is hiding from you. Malvo himself was obsessed about the speeches of Osama Bin Laden.
You are right about the death of journalism in America, but late in noticing. American journalism all but ceased to exist in 1898.
Bum from Jersey,
I also disagree that "most terrorists are not Muslims." A total listing of every group on Earth considered a terrorist group by at least one country would yield a list where over 90% of the groups listed are Islamic in either outlook or affiliation. Numbers would be a even more withering argument. The number of members in all non-Islamic terrorist groups combined ain't no where near the numbers claimed by Islamic terrorist groups.
We can't quite use the words "Islam" and "terrorism" interchangeably, but only just.
Cubed has pointed out something important:
Islam did not choose human life as its "standard of the good." It chose "the spread of Islam." Therefore, according to Islam, any thoughts or behaviors which tend to support the spread of Islam are "good," even if they involve murder and mayhem. Any thoughts or behaviors which tend to threaten the spread of Islam are "bad."
So, it isn't a religion per se...
As a result of Islam's definition as to what is "good," many words take on a different definition. Among those words are innocent and peace. I posted on this topic here.
I agree with Kyle's comment about self-preservation. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact!
Beamish has made excellent point abouts the D.C. snipers and about the high percentage of terrorists who are Muslims.
cubed/always,
Is ALL "Human Life" our American or Western standard of the "good"? If so, how could we ever fight a war, even "defensively"? I think that such a description far exceeds our philosophers and founders stated intentions. I think the pursuit of a "Good Life" (life/liberty/pursuit of happiness) requires humans to self-select their own ends, and not have them selected for them by others (parents exempted in the earliest and most vulnerable years of their childrens lives). As Immanuel Kant once proclaimed, universal morality lay in our treatment of other human beings as "ends unto themselves" and not merely "means to ends".
And so Western Civ is built upon the "limitation and separation" of governmental powers to the greatest extent possible in keeping with a desire to allow their citizens to pursue their own self-determined ends (much like G-d crafted man in his own image and allowed him to exercise his own "creative" free-will in the Garden of Eden by granting him the capacity of "choosing un-wisely" to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To choose wisely is the path to virtue. To choose unwisely is the path to decadence.
Islam does NOT adhere to this fundamental western idealogical AND religious principle (for REAL "religion" is that part of an idealogy upon which an individual ACTUALLY ACTS and does not merely "think about", religion based upon an ontology of "faith" and idealogy upon one of "opinion"). For sharia was developed to FORCE the decadent (foolish/unwise) city dwellers into submission and external adherence to their religious principles and to prevent them thereby, from making "unwise" choices and learning the truth.
And so there is a fundamental difference in the "first principles" of eastern and western societies. Ours is based upon separating powers so as to achieve a social environment exalting "volunteerism" and the freedom of a self-directed choice. Out government attempts to incentivize and seduce us into making the "right" choices, nor force us. Islam unifies the powers of church and state and thereby FORCES its' choices upon all and thereby prevent their citizens from exercising TRUE virtue (knowledge of good and evil). The kind of virtue that is derived not merely from an ontology of "faith" or "opinion", but one of more certain "knowledge", where one learns from his mistakes and becomes convinced as to the truth of his idealogy/religion and thereby self-correcting, not other-corrected.
-FJ
Post a Comment