The more I ready about incidents like that of the Nigerian teacher whose home was burned to the ground for disciplining a Muslim student, or any of the other ways that “radical” Islam is trying to intimidate the free world, the more I keep asking myself, what would I do if they were coming for me? I’ll tell you what I would not do – I would not let myself be slaughtered like a sheep. I keep thinking of the movie The Mission, where Jeremy Irons and Robert Deniro play two Jesuits who have to choose to fight or passively resist – tough choice – it shows the value of both positions (and I think both are valuable and “right.”) I think we need a multi-pronged approach.
Table of Contents
1. Take strong pro-active legislative stances
We already have a constitution, but we need to do things like the Dutch have begun doing, including:
- Strip Islamic radicals with dual nationality of their American passports
- Halt immigration from all Islamic countries, except for those seeking asylum
- Monitor and close down all Mosques that promote Jihad, even if only in printed materials
- Refuse to make allowances in public institutions (e.g. schools, government buildings) for Sharia law (e.g. if a school has a rule of no hats, that means no head coverings for Jews or Muslims or anyone else). France, of course, has already tried this.
2. Infiltrate and Prosecute Jihadist Organizations in the US
Just like the Feds took down the Italian mafia, Radical Islamists need to be viewed as criminal organizations, and even more moderate Muslim organizations are suspect, since radicals can hide out in them. Those who promote sedition should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
3. Cooperate with Islamic Reformers
Thankfully, a majority of Muslims realize, at least subconsciously, the insanity of the radical teachings of their prophet, and don’t want to kill us all. We need to work with them to make a better Islam possible. As an aside, I don’t consider CAIR a truly moderate group. We should read their books and engage them. Try these books:
- Taking Back Islam: American Muslims Reclaim Their Faith (Wolfe, ed.) – we need to listen to and encourage the voices of moderation within the Muslim community. Even if we believe that Islam, in its foundational teachings, is murderous, it is not going away, and any encouragement and support that we can give to the majority of Muslims who don’t want to kill infidels is something we should consider.
- Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (Ramadan) – ditto on the above book. It will be easier to convince healthy people to abandon radical Islam than to abandon Islam entirely, so lets be knowledgeable and generous to the moderate Islamic cause (without supporting Islam itself, if possible – at the least, we should not be antagonistic towards moderates.)
4. Prepare for Ideological Battle
We will all have to take up the public policy and civil rights issues in our own towns. We need to be ready to defend liberty. Heck, if the ACLU takes up these cases in defense of freedom, I might even support them (on a case by case basis ;). This means arming ourselves with KNOWLEDGE of the principles of freedom and liberty. The following books are what I consider to be good primers (secularists, please chime in with suggestions):
- American Government (Cliffs Quick Review)
- Democracy in America (de Tocqueville)
- The Federalist Papers (Hamilton)
- Liberating the Nations: Biblical Principles of Government, Education, Economics and Politics (McDowell)
- Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures (Miller)
- Winning the Future (Gingrich)
5. Prepare for Spiritual Battle, Service, and Evangelism
Like it or not, we have to reach out to the Muslim community with loving service and gospel preaching. As Christians, we need to educate ourselves on what Muslims believe, including moderate Muslims who don’t buy into the whole Jihad thing. And you thought evangelizing Jews was tough! First, I suggest reading any or all of the following:
- Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities (Gabriel) – I can not recommend this book highly enough. The first appendix has some great advice on how to share Jesus with Muslims (starting with “don’t insult the Koran or Mohammed”)
- The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Spencer) – I’ve not read this yet, but am impressed with Spencer, whom you can read on Jihad Watch, and can hear on various podcasts at Hot Air.
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (Spencer) – this is a little bit of an easier read than the book above, but also covers the liberal revisionist history of the Crusades.
- While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within (Bawer)
Second, I suggest that the church needs to do spiritual work:
- Repentance – for loving our lives, fortunes, and careers more than reaching the lost Muslims. For not being salt and light. We need to return to God with passion and vision.
- Prayer – we need a spiritual awakening in America, not just an evangelism plan.
- Study – as said above, we need to arm our minds
- Outreach – we need to GO, and support those who GO (missionaries)
6. Prepare for Suffering
Any time a great spiritual evil like slavery (or abortion) or radical Islam need to be unseated, there will be anger, violence, and bloodshed. We need to be ready to suffer with a Christlike attitude, loving our enemies and doing good to them, and forgiving. We need to take positive and peaceful social action (like the vast majority of abortion protesters) and demand that government defend freedom and liberty, with the sword if necessary. We don’t want to promote violence with vigilantism. This Herculean task is something Christ asks us to do.
7. Prepare to Defend Ourselves with Arms
I am not a pacifist. If someone tries to come and kill myself and my family, I will shoot to kill, and more than once. If it’s one thing I’ve learned from action movies, it’s make sure the bad guy is really dead. Put an extra bullet through his noggin just in case. In fact, the Christians being killed in Sudan soon realized that turning the other cheek may not apply to those trying to kill you, and they began fighting back.
If you are unsure, try reading Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defence, a book by a Christian, black author who decided to shoot back after seeing many innocents killed in his town in South Africa. If my town gets dangerous, I will buy a handgun, get a license, and practice, and teach my wife to shoot too. I have lots of gun-owner friends, and they are serious about allowing the rule of law to continue, and if they have to, they WILL put bullies in their place. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but it’s a reality we need to consider.
CONCLUSION
The Muslim religion is, IMHO, one of the most significant threats to peace and freedom in our world today. We need to gear up to fight it with vision, character, kindness, firmness, legislation, education, preaching, and arms where necessary. Along with abortion and atheistic Communism (yes, still a threat!), Islam is one of the biggest sources of murder and mayhem, and we need to take it on like men and women of courage. And I am preaching to my wimpy self the most.
Uhh, you do realize that with what you're proposing, you're actually letting the bad guys win, right?
FCL, your point is one I have brought up before with this article…
Molly Ivins: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 – 2006)
After reading Seeker’s post closely, I can tell that he has put some thought into moderating his idea’s instead of making this post into an outright polemic as he is prone to do. For example…
lets be knowledgeable and generous to the moderate Islamic cause
and…
We need to be ready to suffer with a Christlike attitude, loving our enemies and doing good to them, and forgiving and demand that government defend freedom and liberty, with the sword if necessary..
Having said this I see so many troubling things here Seeker. For example, within the same sentence you do a 360, preaching the “Golden Rule” and then demand using the “sword if necessary!?” Kind of like Ghandi saying, “Well, if this peaceful demonstration thing doesn’t work, lets riot.” :P
Here is a naive statement, “Like it or not, we have to reach out to the Muslim community with loving service and gospel preaching.” Basically, lets convert Muslims into Christians. Yeah, I am working on converting Aaron and Seeker into Evolutionists as well and we all see how wonderfully that is working out.
You also want to bring back prosecution for sedition. You’ve gone bonkers here. In one instance, a traveling wine and brandy salesman was sentenced to 7 to 20 years in prison for calling wartime food regulations a “big joke.” Excerpt…
Seeker, the rest of your post falls in line with the Christian nationalist agenda. Excerpts…
Real Christians Do No Wrong: Brutal Behavior in the War on Terror Isn’t Real Brutality When Christians Do It
Now We Can All Sleep Safely, if Lightly: Vichy Democrats & God’s Own Republicans have Bipartisan Torture Agreement
Scrap the Constitution: Civil Liberties Mean Nothing when our Enemies Want to Kill Us
Defining Brutality Downwards: America’s Actions are Just and Decent if Others Behave Worse
The Prince of Peace as a Symbol for War on Muslims, Islamic Extremism, Islamofascism
Christian Nationalism & Christian Fascism: What Will it Take to Cause Christian Nationalism to Become Fully Fascist?
This one really resembeles Seekers words, “If my town gets dangerous, I will buy a handgun, get a license, and practice, and teach my wife to shoot too.”
Manly Christian Combat Against Islamofascism: Christians Using War as a Sign of Virility, Manliness, Heterosexuality
I think Seekers point is, there is such a thing as too much tolerance, though I think this applies to Christian Fundamentalism as well as Islamic Fundamentalism. Unfortunately, Seeker’s solutions border on fascism, for as the above links illustrate, he believes what Christian Nationalists believe. Seeker, I honestly hope I am wrong about this.
What I want to make clear though is the “ends do not justify the means” and this war on terror should not be used as a pretext to destroy our civil liberties. This is why I think the Bush administration is repulsive and grotesque in it’s assault upon liberty. There must be a call to reason! Propaganda calls for nationalism like this echo those heard in pre-Nazi Germany. Christian Nationalism is a greater threat to this country than Islam.
For example, within the same sentence you do a 360, preaching the “Golden Rule” and then demand using the “sword if necessary!?”
My reference to “the sword” actually refers to pushing for civil justice, rather than vigilante justice – it means NOT taking matters into our own hands, but exercising mercy and restraint personally, while pushing for the execution and enforcement of the law so that we maintain social order and avoid clans killing one another. You can not have personal restraint and mercy if civil justice is left undone.
Like it or not, we have to reach out to the Muslim community with loving service and gospel preaching. Basically, lets convert Muslims into Christians.
Yes, I am writing to Christians, and addressing our dislike for Muslims and our reluctance to reach out to them with the gospel, which can rescue them, not only from judgement (which we believe Islam can NOT do because it is a works-based religion), but from the manipulative, legalistic, fear-based, oppressive faith that holds them captive.
Many of our greatest anti-Islamic apologists are those who subsequently found Christ. And many more will because the teachings of Christ, seen against those of Mohammed, are like seeing light and darkness.
You also want to bring back prosecution for sedition.
Perhaps I am misusing the term. What do you call it when people support violence and overthrow of the government?
Brutal Behavior in the War on Terror Isn’t Real Brutality When Christians Do It…when it comes to acts designed to further a Christian religious or political agenda.
I would say that most Christians are against the torture, but we are also realists when it comes to war and justice – Aaron, who I think is representative of most Xians on this issue, is ashamed of our conduct in many aspects of the war, including our treatment of prisoners and the justification of torture. To say that this is Christian, as opposed to conservative, is wrong, disingenous, and as you mention, contrary to Christian teaching. I note also that killing others to spread the faith is against xian teaching, but one of the central practices and tenets of Islam.
Trying to turn my criticisms around on me is a tiring ruse because you are comparing mountains to molehills. Sure, xianity deserves some criticism, but to put it in the same league as Islam is to be duped by liberal revisionist history and modern liberal propoganda and delusion. This type of demonizing of xianity on one hand while giving a multicultural pass to the Islamists is what is allowing them to poison western culture, starting with Europe.
And with regard to brutality and the Christian agenda, while you may consider denying gays official sanction for marriage as “brutal,” beyond that ‘brutality,’ Christians are not really threatening at all in the political arena in any way, nor are they pushing for religious laws, but for moral ones. Saving children from abortion, for instance, is a moral cause, not a religious one.
The sight of so-called “progressives” from the Democratic Party joining in, though, is enough to make even a cynical person weep with despair.
Again, don’t give Islamists a pass because of our possible missteps. I am not advocating torture. And the fact that many progressives went along may mean that they want to get re-elected, but it may actually mean something more significant – that they, knowing the details that you and I do not, dont’ buy the liberal media’s sky-is-falling view of this issue, but rather, are viewing it soberly and with concern for both prisoners AND successful warfare.
they can’t fight terrorism while continuing to respect traditional civil liberties.
This may be partly true, but this is not the fault of those who are passing such laws. As I mentioned in The Fall of Nations, when individual wickedness (which includes not standing up against wickedness) increases, societal chaos and fear increase, and short of tranforming the hearts and minds of the populace (which preachers and educators must do), order and safety have to be maintained by outer government. It’s how it works.
While we must preserve civil liberties, will you take away guns if people are killing one another in the streets? Will you disallow the assembly of criminals who conspire to kill us?
Don’t blame the legislators – blame those who are evil, and strive to support civil government in establishing justice. If they need to tap phones, it is because YOU and I did not do enough to prevent wickedness from growing. Yes, we may not really be culpable, but taking away the government’s ability to protect us by demanding unfettered rights does not work.
What does work is curtailed rights until order is restored. We can support the govt in finding and prosecuting criminals, and we can model and teach personal virtue.
Point out to them that surveys show how secular, nonreligious Americas are less likely to accept torture as justified under any circumstances. If that isn’t a sign of being more moral, what is?
First of all, your dreaded “Christian Nationalists” are a minority, and painting the whole xian right as part of that movement is self-defeating to your arguments.
Second, your question is a good one. How does the bible describe a righteous person? Many ways
– caring for orphans and widows
– defending the poor and helpless
– doing good in the face of evil
– loving your enemies
– preaching sound doctrine and biblical morality
– not being captured by wordly values (lusts of the flesh, lust for posessions, notariety, or power)
You are waving this torture thing around, and it distracts from the main point – while you point up the minor infractions of the majority of xians and the more major infractions of a few “christian nationals”, the blunt fact is that Islam is much more wicked and murderous, all over the globe. You act like I have no right to declare such things because my religion is just as bad. I call foul on that reasoning.
I suspect that you value secularism above all other ideologies, and treat all religion as something wicked. I appreciate much of the benefits of secularism, except for the anti-religious refrains. But it is a view that is incomplete and unable to fully rescue individuals and society, though it forms a good counterbalance to religious fundamentalism.
What Will it Take to Cause Christian Nationalism to Become Fully Fascist?
While liberals keep themselves up at night with such questions, they are misdirecting their energies, and the nation’s. Islam is threatening the world, while in almost all cases, except for those who want to mainstream sexual immorality, Christianity is a liberating force. And this rediculous focus on the supposed evils of the religious right is allowing Islam to slide into place like the insidious evil that it is.
Christians Using War as a Sign of Virility, Manliness, Heterosexuality
There is a time for war. You would probably have objected to the Revolutionary War on the same grounds. But Christianity consistently teaches that while vigilante justice is to be eschewed, the pursuit of civil justice and just war is manly, godly thing that requires courage.
Christians are not promoting world conquest, nor Muslim extermination, and neither am I. But I have a “right and duty” to self-defense, and if some Muslim wants to shoot you because you want the right to publish cartoons, I just may stop him.
Seeker’s solutions border on fascism, for as the above links illustrate, he believes what Christian Nationalists believe. Seeker, I honestly hope I am wrong about this.
I think you are wrong. I don’t think my ideas come anywhere near fascism in the least. But I am taking a strong stand against an evil ideology (not people), and I will defend my homeland and home against violent invaders.
there is such a thing as too much tolerance, though I think this applies to Christian Fundamentalism
I am not just saying that there is a limit to tolerance. I am saying that there is an ideological war, and many people are being held captive by the evils of Islam. I do not equate all religions with evil, but this one shows its true colors daily in spades, worldwide. I am saying that we must prepare to fight it on all fronts or become its captives. I am saying that we must exercise the Christian virtues of kindess, love, and tolerance, eschewing vigilantism, while affirming the responsibility of the government to take strong steps to ensure domestic tranquility, and the right to self-defense if the violence that commonly accompanies Islam comes to our own towns.
I am saying that if we fail to do the first things, the latter (self defense in a society filled with fear and intimidation) will come to pass.
I may respect my Islamic neighbors, but I find little to respect or value in Islam itself. It is an evil ideology that brings oppression and death. It is, in a word, Satanic. While abuses of any other religion or ideology can be oppressive and murderous, none are in their nature aimed at being so, like this one.
Why it continues to succeed in so many countries is beyond me. Maybe I am missing something, or maybe it appeals to those who find in it a justification for hate.
Propaganda calls for nationalism like this echo those heard in pre-Nazi Germany.
I am not calling for nationalism. I am calling for all humanity to resist the inhumanity of Islam.
Christian Nationalism is a greater threat to this country than Islam.
You are entirely deceived, and have drunk the cool-aid of the liberal left. Following their misdirection, you are following a red herring. Christian nationalism is a blip, a side-show circus of far right crazies. But you believe the lies that
– most Christians support all of Bush’s policies
– most Christians want a theocracy
– all Christians are trying to take away rights (when in truth they are trying to get rights for the unborn, and preserve marriage AND the rights of gays to live in peace)
– saving children from abortion is taking away the civil liberties of women (infanticide is not a right)
– most Christians want to outlaw other religions
These fabrications are part of the liberal Chicken Little effect, and are part of the nonsense that the polarists on both ends pursue. It is maddening in it’s warped perceptions and fear mongering. Argh.
One more thing about "proto-Nazism." It is chic these days to compare one's ideological enemies to Nazis. The sad fact is, Islam has more in common with Nazism than either Xianity OR evolution (and yes, I think that the eugenic and dehumanizing ideas that flow from evolution DO have more to do with historic Nazism than we like to admit).
But like Nazism, Islam is racist, nationalist, bent on armed, world conquest, is filled with murder and intimidation, as well as broken treaties and deception. It is the king of intolerance, a system where killing is not the last option, but one of the first.
What makes it even worse than Nazism is that it relies not on scientific claims, but on religious ones.
You can bad mouth Jesus and xianity all day and sleep safely at night, but say one word against the prophet of Islam and you may not wake in the morning.
Seeker, did you bother to click on those links and read the full arguments? I only included excerpts, per your request, and it seems you only responded to the excerpts themeselves. All those links expand upon and support FCL's lucid post.
Saving children from abortion, for instance, is a moral cause, not a religious one.
I've learned that Christian Nationalists do not differentiate between religion and morality. They don't see them as seperate so, your statement is untrue.
Seeker, I view FCL as representative of mainstream Christianity, not you. I would think true Christians would have a strong moral objection with what the Bush administration is doing to habeas corpus and torture; and FCL does. It seems you don't. I think you are a Christian Nationalist, though I acknowledge there are many worse than you. Here is what you and other Christian Nationalists think of gay rights. Tell me this does not describe your perspective. Gay Agenda vs. Civil Liberty
I am going to repost those links because I think they provide valuable insight into the seperate reality which Non-Christian Nationalists don't even know about, much less understand. Normal society needs to know where the Christian Nationalists are coming from when they read propaganda posts like yours, calling for Christian Nationalism.
Real Christians Do No Wrong: Brutal Behavior in the War on Terror Isn't Real Brutality When Christians Do It
Vichy Democrats & God's Own Republicans have Bipartisan Torture Agreement
Scrap the Constitution: Civil Liberties Mean Nothing when our Enemies Want to Kill Us
Defining Brutality Downwards: America's Actions are Just and Decent if Others Behave Worse
Prince of Peace as a Symbol for War on Muslims, Islamic Extremism, Islamofascism
Christian Nationalism & Christian Fascism: What Will it Take to Cause Christian Nationalism to Become Fully Fascist?
Christian nationalism is a blip, a side-show circus of far right crazies.
This post is an appeal to Christian Nationalism, your hypocrisy is grotesque.
…is to be duped by liberal revisionist history and modern liberal propoganda and delusion…You are entirely deceived, and have drunk the cool-aid of the liberal left. Following their misdirection, you are following a red herring…These fabrications are part of the liberal Chicken Little effect, and are part of the nonsense that the polarists on both ends pursue. It is maddening in it's warped perceptions and fear mongering…
Yak Yak Yak, Seeker. No substance. No point. Your wasting everyone's time with crap like this, so quit it.
What makes it (Islam) even worse than Nazism is that it relies not on scientific claims, but on religious ones.
I almost died from the irony of this statement coming from you.
What I want to make clear though is the "ends do not justify the means" and this war on terror should not be used as a pretext to destroy our civil liberties. This is why I think the Bush administration is repulsive and grotesque in it's assault upon liberty. There must be a call to reason! Propaganda calls for nationalism like this echo those heard in pre-Nazi Germany. Christian Nationalism is a greater threat to this country than Islam.
This deserves repeating as it was in support of FCL and Sam…
You are waving this torture thing around, and it distracts from the main point – while you point up the minor infractions of the majority of xians and the more major infractions of a few "christian nationals", the blunt fact is that Islam is much more wicked and murderous, all over the globe. You act like I have no right to declare such things because my religion is just as bad. I call foul on that reasoning.
It's funny, I agree with seeker. However, I also feel the same way about Christianity. The enemy is fundamentalist religion, not just one sect.
Louis, one thing I do appreciate about you is that you do depend on your reason, and appear more interested in arriving at truth than your own opinions.
I believe you that you tried xianity and found it wanting. I also agree that fundamentalist religions of all types are dangerous. Believe it or not, I am not a fundamentalist, but an escapee from abusive fundamentalism. I don't buy into the fear-based threatening power abuse that goes on there.
Despite my strong rhetoric regarding homosexuality, it is mostly defensive posturing against those whom I believe are taking illogical and untrue stands. Despite claims to the contrary, and my sometimes unkind language, I don't support the abuse of gays, and truly do enjoy my gay friends (what few I have), aquaintances, and family (I do have gay family members).
I do think that Christianity has been abusive and unkind to gays. However, the tough spot most xians are in is that we believe it to be a sexual sin. Actually caring about people while not buying into their dysfunctions is tough to do. You have to agree to disagree. Heck, maybe I'm the one w/ the dysfunction ;).
Anyway, glad that you at least agree that while Christian and all religious fundamentalism is cruel and anti-human, Islam may be an order of magnitude worse.
Christian Nationalists do not differentiate between religion and morality.
I agree. But secularist fundamentalists do not differentiate between morality that aligns with biblical ideas, and religion.
My opposition to abortion is not religious, any more than my opposition to infanticide. I don't claim that the second or third trimester fetus is a child because the bible says so – because the bible does NOT say so.
I listen to reason, science, logic, and my own eyes and inner conscience and moral compass.
I view FCL as representative of mainstream Christianity, not you.
I guess you'll have to define mainstream. If that means "the majority," that is certainly arguable. Of course, the majority is not always right.
If by mainstream you mean "representative of true Christianity," you'll have to define what "true Chrisitanity" is. With the reformers, I would say that to be truly Christian, you must be biblical (sola biblia). He probably claims such, so that still would not differentiate us.
He is certainly part of progressive or liberal Christianity, which are valid if they hold to the essentials of the faith. One's theology of homosexuality is not a central element of faith, and Christians are allowed latitude on these issues.
That doesn't mean that he is correct on homosexuality, or that I am.
The real question is, do you believe in Jesus as savior and Lord (that means you believe enough to surrender your life to Him and His purposes for you)? That's what makes a true Christian. I consider FCL a Christian (though I could not tell for sure unless he defined what he believes), but like many Christians, he may be in error on some or many non-essential doctrines. And I think he does err on homosexuality.
It's OK if you consider him mainstream. What's more important is, is he correct?
I think you are a Christian Nationalist
Perhaps you should define what you mean by this. What do CN's believe? What are their means and ends? Am I a CN because I am against abortion and against the redefinition of marriage? I am not a recontrutionist or dominionist, which is what I thought you meant by CN.
I would think true Christians would have a strong moral objection with what the Bush administration is doing to habeas corpus and torture; and FCL does. It seems you don't.
I have not given my opinion on this directly, but have claimed ignorance in these matters. I have acknowledged that torture is morally objectionable, and so in large part, agree with FCL on this. I'm not sure where your characature of me comes from, but not from my words. In fact, I am to the LEFT of Aaron. As I wrote:
This post is an appeal to Christian Nationalism, your hypocrisy is grotesque.
No, this is an appeal to Christians to prepare themselves to defend our culture against Islam. I am not talking about legislating to make Islam illegal or Christianity the law of the land. I *am* talking about preparing ourselves to educate and preach true democracy (as the founders saw it), a true healthy relationship between church and state, rather than the two extremes of theocracy or secular hegemony.
You may be alarmed at my forthright disgust with Islam, but I am mainly adressing Christians. I understand that you doubt Christianity's truth or efficacy in bringing personal and national liberation. But perhaps you could more clearly define what you mean by Christian Nationalism.
I can promote Christianity as true and superior to other faiths, while not being a Christian nationalist – I think you are confusing the two.
Yak Yak Yak, Seeker. No substance. No point.
Maybe I didn't make my point clear. The fact that you put Islam on the same plane as Christianity shows a deep misunderstanding of history, and of both faiths. Further, your misunderstanding of the unfortunate necessity of the Crusades (a defensive war after 400 years of Muslim aggression) and other historical events shows that you believe the historical myths created by anti-catholic Rennaisance historians and others who had a grudge against faith (like the flat earth myth).
I almost died from the irony of this statement coming from you.
That's because you misunderstand the relationship, in Christian terms, between faith, reason, and public policy. I have tried to explain it, but you consistently misunderstand faith because you have a bi-polar view of it – that faith is against reason, that faith can not be relied upon, nor work in concert with reason.
I wish you would quit defending Islam by trying to bring Christianity to the same level. Islam is VERY similar to Nazism, but worse because of it's religious component. Your whole approach seems to me to be something like this:
"Christians have no right to criticize Islam because they are just as bad. And Islam really isn't that bad, certainly not as bad as Nazism, this is just demonization. And only secularism can help save humanity."
All I have to say is, wake up, Islam is evil. And secularism, while it has its strong points, is not able to save humanity because it ignores the reality of people's need for faith and the reality of God.
But secularist fundamentalists do not differentiate between morality that aligns with biblical ideas, and religion.
We’ve been over this ground many times. If Secularism is…
…then what is secular fundamentalism? It’s sufficient to just say “secular” because “fundamentalism” is a word coined by Christians for adherence to religious fundamentals.
you’ll have to define what “true Christianity” is.
Followers of Jesus and his teachings, specifically “the golden rule.” True Christians need not take the bible literally. They are not militant, they don’t want to legislate their version of morality into public law (see C.S. Lewis quote about marriage that Louis gave). C.S. Lewis is an example of a true Christian. So is FCL. When the Amish invited the murders wife to the funeral of their children, that was an act of true Christianity.
The real question is, do you believe in Jesus as savior and Lord (that means you believe enough to surrender your life to Him and His purposes for you)? That’s what makes a true Christian.
This is what makes a true Protestant. Not necessarily a true Christian. For example, Catholics believe salvation is: Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance. Those who have never heard of Christ may be saved. (Catech 847) Catholic salvation is conditional where Protestant salvation is not. Do you dare argue that Catholics are not true Christians because they have a different view of how to get into heaven than you Protestants? You can’t both be right so which is it? Sorry, I digress.
But perhaps you could more clearly define what you mean by Christian Nationalism… Perhaps you should define what you mean by this. What do CN’s believe? What are their means and ends?
For more insight into the ideology of Christian Nationalism visit You Aren’t a Real American if you Don’t Believe in God: One Nation, Under God: America is a Christian Nation and go through the gallery. It covers everything from the Christian nationalist views on Islam, Abortion, Gays, Politics. It’s a great resource for normal people to get a glimpse into their alternate reality. In addition to Goldberg’s definition I would add that Christian Nationalists tend to isolate themselves from the rest of society by not associating with secularists. Isolation is fertile ground for extremism. Seeker, Goldberg’s definition of Christian Nationalism fits you because you believe The United States was founded as a “Christian Nation,” correct?
I would think true Christians would have a strong moral objection with what the Bush administration is doing to habeas corpus and torture; and FCL does. It seems you don’t. -Cineaste
I’m not sure where your caricature of me comes from, but not from my words… What principles do we use to separate valid interrogation techniques from torture? I’m not really sure. -Seeker
We can easily put this issue to rest. Seeker, is waterboarding interrogation or torture? I say yes, how about you? Please give reasons if you say it’s not.
No, this (post) is an appeal to Christians to prepare themselves to defend our culture against Islam.
You want people to be prosecuted for Sedition, you want people to arm themselves; this post matches the satirical posters I have linked. Look!
7. Prepare to Defend Ourselves with Arms -Seeker Militarize the Homeland, the People, and the Children!
Where do I sign my Child up for the
HitlerSeeker Youth? Your post smacks of fascism.the Crusades (a defensive war after 400 years of Muslim aggression) …you believe the historical myths created by anti-catholic Renaissance historians and others who had a grudge against faith
To anyone else reading this, do not believe Seeker about this. He is twisting history. Asking Seeker for a justification of the Crusades is like a asking Bin Laden for a justification of Jihad. Seeker is clearly not Bin Laden but their explanations would be similar and equally twisted to suit their ideology. There would be no impartiality.
“Christians have no right to criticize Islam because they are just as bad. And Islam really isn’t that bad, certainly not as bad as Nazism, this is just demonization. And only secularism can help save humanity.”
I think fanatics in both religions are “evil” but it’s not a question of choosing between the lesser of the two. The last sentence is true because Christians and Muslims get along about as well as fire and water. Secularism can provide a solution to conflict by removing the religious dogma that fuels the hate in the fanatical elements of both religions. This can be done through education. It is indeed a “culture war” but its a war in which secularism is better equipped to fight (non violently) than Christianity is.
Above all things remember this:
The problem with both radical Christianity and radical Islam is they don’t educate their children as secularists would, instead they indoctrinate them.
– Mark (Cineaste) from a letter I wrote to my Christian friend Patricia
then what is secular fundamentalism?
You still didn’t answer my assertion, that secularists make the opposite mistake to religionists – they assume that all morality that has a possible religious backing is therefore religious – so my assertion that killing is wrong is religious, since it is biblical. In fact, all of my public policy stands, though informed by faith, are reasoned based on ethics and reason, not religious authority. But secularists often make the ruse that if I disagree with them on, say, abortion, they can dismiss my arugments because I am “religious.” This is bogus.
What is secular fundamentalism? Let’s break it down so you understand:
In this case, it is not a religious movement. But the rest applies. So, secular fundamentalism would be:
Whether you like or dislike that definition, that is how I and many others are using it. It is a perfectly valid use of these words, not just because it falls within the broader definition of fundmentalism, but because it is an obvious analog to religious fundamentalism.
In fact, you could put any ideology in front of the word fundamentalism, and assume that such fundamentalists were focusing on core principles and being intolerant of others. Secular fundie are intolerant of religionists, or at least derisive, demeaning, and dismissive, not to mention dishonest and disingenuous about the positive role of faith in hisory (I had to use some more “D” adjectives).
Followers of Jesus and his teachings, specifically “the golden rule.”
But which teachings? All of them? How about “I’m telling you the truth, unless a man is born again, he won’t enter the Kingdom of God.” You see, liberals are selective – they focus on grace but not on truth. And fundies make the opposite mistake. Jesus talked more about hell than heaven in the gospels, so let’s not pick and choose and then call ourselves followers of Jesus.
And while the golden rule is ONE of his main instructions for living, it is clearly NOT his instruction for how a man is saved from guilt and judgment by God. But liberals don’t want salvation from wrath, they only want a pleasant religious philosophy to live by. No wonder they think all religions are alike – for in this sense, they are.
But check out some of Jesus other teachings – I would say these are all part of “loving God”, the greatest commandment, according to Jesus:
Catholics believe salvation is: Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance.
Yes, this is why the Protestants broke away – because these doctrines are unchristian and unbiblical. This is why the the reformers preached the solas – because corrupt Catholic doctrine included placing Catholic teachings and interpretations above the text itself. Sure, you could argue that Catholicism is Christianity to most of the world, but from the first century, true believers, not those enslaved to works-based religious lies, were carrying the torch. You can choose to side with their doctrines, or argue that these are Christian doctrines – I would say that if they are believing in salvation by anything other than faith in Jesus, they are not followers of Jesus, but of religion, which can’t save.
“Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state.”
So, if you don’t believe in the radical secular view of separation of church and state, and question the validity of historical texts with regards to the church, you are a CN? Then I am most certainly one of them. Now, to the right of your radical position, there is a huge spectrum, from left-leaning Evangelicals to Dominionists, but if you want to put them all in the same pot to demonize them and make your secularism look noble, that’s your mistake.
It is clear to me that the founders, who in many of their state Constitutions made Christian faith a prerequisite for holding office, did NOT intend a secular state, but rather, one that did not promote any one DENOMINATION of Christianity. They also meant to separate the positions of power in both, but they most certainly intended Christian thought and morality to influence and form public policy. Absolutely.
Almost all who came to colonize, including the Pilgrims, Columbus, and the Puritans, came for the furthurance of the gospel. No, they did not believe that Christianity spread through government, but they did believe that faith and public policy were related.
And the first insitutions of higher learning like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton? Were they made to promote the great ideas of secularism? NO! They were first and foremost Christian seminaries intent on spreading the gospel.
But in this argument about America’s founders, both radical secularists and dominionists form the ignorant poles. The truth, which is inbetween, is that the founders were much more religious and thought much higher of Christian faith than secularists would like, while at the same time were trying to create a government that could not be manipulated by religious zealots. But the middle ground is not the secular utopia that atheists and secularists wish for.
Your post smacks of fascism.
So what will you do when Islamists in your neighborhood threaten your family’s safety? You are naive. You would let them come in and kill your family like they did to that family in Maryland? I said this as a last, and unfortunate possibility, but a moral and just one if it comes to that. There is not Hitler youth here, only preparation for the violence and hatred that always come along with Islam. The fact that liberals pander to it in their multicultural ignorance leads to the types of violence we are starting to see in France and Holland.
I am not advocating, as I have said repeatedly, vigilante justice, or even militias. But I am saying that, among all of these other things we are doing, it is a moral duty to protect our families from thugs, by force if necessary. That’s a plain and real reality in many countries where Islam lives. I’m sorry that you panic when I talk about self-defense, but let’s hope you get off your holier than thou peacenik soapbox in time to take some action before they come for your house of “infidels.”
To anyone else reading this, do not believe Seeker about this. He is twisting history.
Yes, me and a handful of scholars who don’t buy the liberal twist on history. Don’t believe me, read the books on Islam I talked about above. Read Ibn Warraq’s “Why I am Not a Muslim” – he is an arch secularist now, not a religionist. He’ll tell you what Islam is about and has always been about – conquest by subjugation. For 400 years, the Muslims subjugated the entire region by the sword, and finally, Christian statesmen realized that pacifism with respect to Islam does not work any better than it worked with Hitler.
So they fought to take their lands back, and to release people from Muslim oppression. Unlike Islam, there was no talk of conversion via the sword, but deliverance from Muslim oppression.
Asking Seeker for a justification of the Crusades is like a asking Bin Laden for a justification of Jihad.
Clearly, you really have drunk the poison of liberal misinformation. You can’t tell the qualitative difference between Islam and Christianity, between me and Bin Laden, or between terrorists and devout Christians. Your views on this are truly representative of the ignorance that must be countered in the public sphere so that we don’t end up victims.
Secularism can provide a solution to conflict by removing the religious dogma that fuels the hate in the fanatical elements of both religions.
Actually, because secularism essentially denies the reality and need for God, it is woefully incomplete in being able to bring peace or answers to the hearts of people. It is impotent.
The problem with both radical Christianity and radical Islam is they don’t educate their children as secularists would, instead they indoctrinate them.
Again, your ignorance of true faith is typical for unbelievers. In fact, anyone with a strong ideology, including atheist secularists, can indoctrinate their kids.
However, the practical reality is, by your words and actions, you communicate your values to your children. That is a valid form of “indoctrination.” The difference is, do you let your kids question authority? Doubt your ideas? Test out things for themselves? Are they free to abandon your family values without having you kill them?
What if your kid becomes a Christian, or a skinhead, or some other objectionable thing? Can they still come home for thanksgiving? What if they start preaching their newfound faith? Are you so accepting that you wouldn’t put limits on what they can do in your home? Are you fascist for doing so?
While religionists do indoctrinate with fear, threats, appeals to religious authority, and rejection if you abandon those principles, there are valid ways to communiate your values while teaching your kids to think for themselves. I intend to do that. Your comparison of Christianity and Islam is so far off of the mark that it is not funny.
What is radical christianity? A call to love, peacemaking, service, and evangelism. What is radical Islam? Jihad.
You seem entirely unable to grasp the difference between these faiths. Your discernment and logic have obviously been compromised, if not eliminated, by your hatred for religion – that is, your logic and conclusions are now useless and worthless because you see through a fanatics glasses.
Secular Fundamentalism: An ideological movement characterized by a return to fundamental principles.
There have never been any "fundamentals" that secularism can "return" to. Secularism has always been…
1. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
So, you tell me, what is fundamentalist secularism as opposed to just secularism? Really, how does it differ from the above definition?
You slap the term "fundamentalist" on secularism and it means nothing and in fact it's a contradiction of the very definition you provided; "fundamentalism" is "intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism." By the definition for fundamentalism you provided, "secular fundamentalism" means a type of secularism that opposes itself. Pure genius! (pure sarcasm intended)
You still didn't answer my assertion, that secularists make the opposite mistake to religionists – they assume that all morality that has a possible religious backing is therefore religious – so my assertion that killing is wrong is religious, since it is biblical. In fact, all of my public policy stands, though informed by faith, are reasoned based on ethics and reason, not religious authority. But secularists often make the ruse that if I disagree with them on, say, abortion, they can dismiss my arguments because I am "religious." This is bogus.
I tie religion and morality together because of the Calvinist (correct me if I have the wrong protestant group) assertion that morality is grounded in God's nature. Is this not what Christians believe? Seeker, if you believe that morality comes from somewhere other than God then we agree. You know I have written about this subject at length. I argue that morality is rooted in our human experience and not in God. BTW, I do commend you on your reasoned stance that personhood does not begin at conception. I guess I should ask, "Why do you believe killing is wrong?" Is that your own personal conclusion or did you get that from religion? You already know what I would say. :)
Regarding your Christian view that the United States is a Christian nation and my Secular view that the United States was founded on freedom from religious tyranny, therefore the separation of church and state… I would suggest a separate post to discuss this as this is a huge discussion in and of itself. Don't fear I won't respond.
So what will you do when Islamists in your neighborhood threaten your family's safety? You are naive.
And you are just fear mongering.
let's hope you get off your holier than thou peacenik soapbox in time to take some action before they come for your house of "infidels."
So, have you enlisted into the army yet? Here's a tip for you, you'll find more extremist Muslims to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, why don't you get off your chicken hawk soapbox and back your big words up with some action instead of ranting and raving like a mini-me Ann Coulter?
Clearly, you really have drunk the poison of liberal misinformation.
And clearly you didn't address or include the rest of the above statement because you can't deny the truth of it. Clearly you have drunk the poison of conservative misinformation… yak yak yak… I could write your sentences for you Seeker.
Actually, because secularism essentially denies the reality and need for God, it is woefully incomplete in being able to bring peace or answers to the hearts of people. It is impotent.
Oh how quickly we forget…
Wafa Sultan – The one that started it all
Wafa Sultan is "One of Time Magazine's Top 100 People Who Shape Our World." She has appeared even on FOX :P She is spreading the word of Secularism to Muslims and Muslims are responding favorably, especially Muslim women. Millions of people listen to her which means her message is a million times more potent than your puerile and hollow talking points. Muslims who turn from Islam are sick of religion. The last thing they want are Christian Nationalist nincompoops trying to convert them into more fundamentalism.
Seeker, your last paragraphs do little more than call me a fanatic who hates religion, so I won't respond to them. I'll pray for you instead.
seeker,
It's too bad that you are under the sway of xianism. Really. My contention that christianity is profoundly and completely anti-gay is buttressed by your statements above. It seems that you just might be reasonable about sexuality if it weren't for your sad adherence to that religion.
My ultimate allegiance is not to some religious or political dogma. Rather, it is to Truth. And Truth can only be approached (never arrived at) by Reason and (to a lesser degree) experience. When we abandon Reason, we open ourselves to all sorts of monsters (as we now see in the Middle East, Europe, and Manhattan). We must follow the flickering flame of Reason wherever it leads, no matter how it contradicts our predelictions. And this is why I am so contemptuous of religionists: as far as I can see, they have abandoned Reason in favor of mere feeling, or desperate belief, or mere assertions. They have succumbed to the trap of comforting illusion. If, as Jesus claimed, he is the "Truth" then he must submit himself and his religion to the tests of Reason, otherwise he is just another religious phony. And, as far as I can tell, he fails the test. Unfortunate, but true.
And this is why I criticize and ridicule people like Lawanda: for they do not submit themselves to the hard path of Reason, they do not educate themselves, they do not risk questioning their assumptions and beliefs, and they do not consider the position of their enemy. And, yes, I believe that christianism is the bitter enemy of gay people: history proves it, their theology proves it, and their every political and social move proves it. I repeat, a gay christian is as absurd as a Jew nazi. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
I repeat, a gay christian is as absurd as a Jew nazi.
Louis, does this apply to Andrew Sullivan? Are the Log Cabin Republicans primarily Christian? What do you think of them? Just wondering what you think of gay's affiliated with a party that is itself affiliated with the Christian right. As you say, it seems absurd, but they and Sullivan have quite a loud political voice.
Louis seems convinced that Seeker’s attitude toward gays proves an anti-Christian bias toward homosexuals. He is equally convinced that Christian theology proves this bias as well. Neither case is true. All Seekers’ attitude proves is that there are Christians with such a bias. The truth of the matter is that the kind of position advanced by Seeker is not supported by a careful analysis of the Christian texts or by the use of logic and reason in determining what constitutes good theology. Louis claims to value reason; then let him be reasonable about his approach to the Bible. Louis’ pre-existing prejudices render him as unable to adequately interpret Scripture as Seeker’s do to him.
The only absurd thing in this debate is that we would look for good Christian theology from either a raving anti-Christian or a foaming at the mouth homophobe
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt
Cineaste,
Would this then make us phobophobes?
Ha! Yes, it would. The FDR quote was more for Seeker's benefit, and those who would listen to him. I was trying to make the point, at the risk of sounding trite, that the greatest threat Americans face is not Islam, but the fear of Islam. If our fear becomes so great that it overcomes our reason, so great that we sacrifice our American values, then we have done more damage to ourselves than any terrorist could dream of. This is what Bush's destruction of habeas corpus signifies. This is what makes Seeker's post so dangerously irresponsible. Fear is an enemy of rational thought.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
they don't want to legislate their version of morality into public law
Yes, wicked men like Wm. Wilberforce certainly were jerks for wanting to legislate his version of morality (abolitionism) into law. This argument about morality and law is a typical liberal mistake, thinking that law and morality are not related.
It's not a question of whether or not we legislate morality, it's whose morality and to what extent. Other considerations include whether or not a specific moral stance is justifyable from an ethical point of view (v. merely claiming religious authority), and whether or not the moral issue is worthy of prohibition, regulation, neturality, or sanction.
Your simplistic "morality has no place in legislation" argument is at best a ruse, at worst, childish.
the greatest threat Americans face is not Islam, but the fear of Islam.
There are two poles here – irrational fear of Islam, and blindness to Islams significant faults and devices for subverting a nation.
But a heatlhy, realistic evaluation of Islam, and its current effects on Europe, indicates to me that we do have cause for concern (remember 9/11? Watch the news much?). I am responding to what I consider a healthy fear, and recommending pro-active steps for both our society and indviduals.
Cineaste: The images you posted made me feel ill. And I am very worried about what the President has done in his term, including this last. Wafa Sultan, interesting person.
Seeker: 2 Timothy 1:6 :) I think you are over-reacting, personally. So far we still have civil authorities in communities who will protect us. They don't always do the best job, but I would say we have just as much to worry about from non-religious criminals as muslim criminals.
And this "In fact, anyone with a strong ideology, including atheist secularists, can indoctrinate their kids." So true, people who do not believe in God can indoctrinate anyone who is a follower just as well as any religious person can. My parents have always encouraged me to look at things objectively (that was for you Cineaste :) ) or from others' point of view – especially the bible; and to compare different ideas and results in life. I want my kids to do that as well.
Louis: Really? "they do not risk questioning their assumptions and beliefs, and they do not consider the position of their enemy" Is that why you "ridicule" me? I try to question my beliefs/assumptions regularly, but I have beliefs that have been proven over and over, I usually go with them without re-questioning, unless given a real reason to do so. Mostly I make observations…from what I have learned or experienced so far in life. And that is what you ridicule in me, because I have obvious difference of opinion from you…(and apparently I lack the eloquency of posting that you require in a non-mentally-challenged person too ;) )
Oops, there I go again, making mistakes. That verse was meant to be 2 Timothy 1:7. Apologies. :)
And this "In fact, anyone with a strong ideology, including atheist secularists, can indoctrinate their kids." So true, people who do not believe in God can indoctrinate anyone who is a follower just as well as any religious person can. My parents have always encouraged me to look at things objectively (that was for you Cineaste :)
Lawanda, I am not an atheist. I am secular. There is a big difference. There is a big difference between education and indoctrination as well. Secularists do not push a religion onto their children, though they themselves may have faith. Wafa Sultan and FCL are good examples of secular people who also maintain religious faith. I don't want to get too far off topic on this thread though. If you would like to respond, I would please request that you do so here because there are some posts about this very subject. It's a letter that Richard Dawkins wrote to his 10 year old daughter Juliet about good and bad reasons for believing in something.
Lawanda, when you presume to write about gay people you are acting from ignorance. You've shown this over and over. That is what I meant.
From: "Gays and the Future of Anglicanism: Responses to the Windsor Report" –
From the Christian emperor Justinian in the sixth century until the eighteenth century, Christian communities around Europe regularly put homosexuals to death by burning, beheading, flaying, drowning or hanging them. The ancient Christian thinkers Tertullian, Eusebius and John Chrysostom all argued that same sex relations deserve the penalty of death…In medieval Europe, secular laws often invoked the authority of the bible to execute homosexuals. Bologna adopted the death penalty for sodomy in 1259. Padua followed suit in 1329; Venice in 1342; Rome in 1363; Cremona in 1387; Milan in 1476; and Genoa in 1556. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain actively sought out sodomites to be burned. In the hundred and twenty five years after Calvin taught in Geneva, there were thirty burnings, beheadings, drownings, and hangings of homosexuals in that city. Scores of men and boys were hanged for homosexual activity in Georgian England. Before the advent of modernity, women in Europe were also vulnerable to execution if convicted of lesbianism. The history of churches' treatment of gay people has for over a thousand years been a history of hatred, persecution and death. To this day, standard Christian textbooks devoted to moral theology and commenting on homosexuality are usually trite treatises because of their complete silence on the long-standing brutality meted out to homosexuals by churches, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant. For homosexuals, the history of the Christian church has been a kaleidoscope of harrowing horrors. Their fortunes have now changed. Physical violence has mutated into rhetorical violence, although there are still nine countries today where homosexual behavior is punishable by death.
****
Of course, the desire to be free of all this, to be able to live freely and without fear, to register our love and commitment before family and friends and our society, is dismissed as perversion and mental defect by such as seeker and as mere "whim" by Lawanda. THIS is why I look upon xianity (and indeed, all abrahamic monotheism) as an plague. What God could allow this?
Barry Goldwater (!):
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Your answer is hysterical. Seeker, your steps are akin to the self-flagellation that took place in response to the black death in the Middle Ages. You still haven't said if water boarding was torture or interrogation. You still have not responded to Waffa Sultan's commentary about how to deal with Islam.
1. Waterboarding appears to me to be torture
2. Wafa Sultan is courageous and doing her bit to secularize the world. Having been abused by Islam, she is now anti-religion, it appears to me. That is too bad. I am glad, however, that she is taking on the lies and evils of Islam
3. You call me hysterical, I call you blind and ignorant of the evils of Islam. So now what?
I've given common sense ways of approaching Islam and a much needed call to self defense, which many Christians feel is unChristian. In violent and evil times, where westerners in Europe are wanting to leave their cities due to fear of Muslims, I have no doubt that, if we maintain our soft-gloved approach to Islamic radicals and their mosques, we will have the same here in no time.
I would bet $100 that we will see Islamic problems and demands for Sharia law, and even the honor killing of women in Detroit in the next decade, maybe sooner. Maybe you missed the survey showing that 81% of Muslims in Detroit believe that Sharia law should be the law of the land in Muslim countries. It raises questions, unanswered by the survey, about what kind of government these survey participants would like ultimately to see in the United States.
Here's more: