Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566More gullible nonsense and misplaced fears
Laurie Roth (who I have never heard of before) had an article placed on WorldNetDaily today called “Are we closer to 1938 than we realize?” I clicked it because it sounded up my alley. After reading it, I was utterly disgusted that someone would actually make this comparison.
Ms. Roth contends that Muslims are on the verge of instilling Sharia law into the governments of Europe, Canada, and even the United States. The end of her article says,
The thing that really worries me about so many of our politicians, preachers, teachers and media folks in sheep’s clothing is that they hide behind many real issues of concern for most of us, such as illegal immigration, the North American union, our moral downfall and the national debt.
Don’t even get me started, folks. All issues must be cast aside because there is only one fear: appeasing Muslims.
Sharia law will not be enacted over the United States. The very fear of Islam that people like Laurie Roth has is the open door to tyranny from the great “Christian Crusaders” like George Bush. He isn’t a good example of a Christian, but he is a good example of a Crusader–for slavery and tyranny.
The fear of Muslims is what has put John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. All else is cast aside for war and anti-Islamisim. Islam is not the biggest threat we face today as Americans–our own government is.
Sure, I disagree with Muslims on virtually every political and religious point, but they pose no threat to me. Mass immigration of Muslims over time might be somewhat of a cultural change that I would disagree with–but the problem there is the lack of emphasis on convincing people Christianity is right and just, it is not the fault of the Muslims.
Laurie Roth should stop being fearful of a group of people that pose virtually no threat to us. Terrorists attack us because we have invaded their holy land. Adherents to Islam want Shariah law because that is their religious custom. If immigration law was redefined, maybe we wouldn’t have the fearmongering going on and less Muslims would be coming to the United States. I’m not saying that is the answer, but Ms. Roth should consider that as her position before she accepts the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act of 2007 and the Military Commission Act of 2006 as “good.”
Filed under: Immigration, Politics, Religion
Lance, they ‘posed no threat’ to the people in the World Trade Center, the Tube in London, the trains in Spain, the clubs in Bali, the embassies in Africa, the school in Russia, etc., etc. etc. No threat at all.
It is not the fear of Muslims; if it was, there wouldn’t be a mosque standing in the U.S.. It is fear of being blown up by extremists, the vast majority being Muslim at the moment.
Laurie Roth’s analogy to 1938 seems awfully thin and sensationalist to me. And I definitely agree with you that our own government is our current biggest threat, no doubt.
I get all the major UK newspapers in my newsfeeds and keep an eye on religious news worldwide as much as I can. I’ve watched a number of British documentary/talk shows over the past, oh, I’d say, 6-8 months on the subject of Sharia in UK — both the unacknowledged, underground Sharia that’s practiced and the growing concerns of people in the UK that there’s a possibility that it might be recognized and or somehow partially adopted in UK.
http://tinyurl.com/26cw3g
As Laurie mentions in her post, this came to a head recently when the Archbishop of Canterbury made some statements about exactly such a thing:
http://tinyurl.com/23h4ol
So I think, at least with regards to Sharia Law in the UK, some of the fears are not misplaced.
This caused a stir when it came out last year; I’ll be honest, I’d certainly be concerned if I lived in the UK:
http://tinyurl.com/ywyzxs
Wow. I’ve got to admit, this topic is really fascinating. I was just reading some of Freud’s thoughts from 1932 on human nature, violence, and law, in relation to world peace. Freud addressed a ‘love’/'hate’ dichotomy which is probably more accurately distinguished as ‘love’/'fear’.
We have several kinds of religious law here already: Catholics follow their own religious law regarding divorce and abortion, Jews have Kosher and other Talmudic law, etc. These all fit into our general laws, with the exception of polygamous Mormons.
The Bishop of Canterbury was indicating was that the general laws of England could be modified to allow those who wish to do so to follow some of the Sharia laws with regard to some things, perhaps divorce, inheritance and such.
Sharia would not be forced on anyone any more than Kosher is forced on us. You participate if, and only if, you wish to. This is an entirely reasonable proposition.
With regard to the threat: the FBI rated the MS-13 as a much bigger threat than Al Quaeda. We should really put some focus on them too.
Nice post, Lance. I’m glad to see someone some discussion about Islam that doesn’t label it as a threat to humanity. I don’t agree with many of modern Islam’s political and religious stances either, but I also believe that this is a phase that their faith is going through. For example, look at Turkey’s recent attempts to revise interpretations of their sacred texts. That’s a good news.
In response to Mike, I agree that many extremists come from Islam, but that doesn’t mean we should respond against their entire culture. Attacks and labels that target entire groups like “islamo-fascist” help breed the sort of paranoia that we saw during the communist hunts and the Japanese roundups during WW2. Sure, there were legitimate threats there, but I think it’s inexcusable to react like we did - rounding up and smearing good, honest citizens because we were afraid. It’s just fighting ‘fire with fire,’ except in this case the fire is authoritarianism.
I don’t see any indication we have gone after any ‘entire culture’ in this. If we had, would we be working so hard to put Iraqis back in charge? Woulkd we not have just carpet bombed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would we even be allowing any new Muslims into the country? Would a man with Hussein as a middle name be in contention for the White House?
However, read my first ‘Gray Zone’ posting to contemplate a very dark scenario, especially pay attention to the comments and my responses to them.
“Islam is not the biggest threat we face today as Americans–our own government is.”
Just as the Founding Fathers warned.
Mike O: The terrorist attacks you reference did not occur in a vacuum. Cartoonish “evildoers” don’t wake up and decide that today is a good day to strap on the suicide belt. Their self-perception, right or wrong, is one of victimhood. To my mind, a suicide attack reflects the most extreme level of despair a human psyche can reach.
Of course anyone who tries to figure out why they feel that they deserve their victim status (which would be the first step toward addressing it) is castigated as a “Blame America Firster”.
There are two very good reasons that our foreign policy should be based entirely on Washington’s advice to “avoid entangling alliances”. (Before you beat me with the “isolationist” stick, remember that he followed that up with something I don’t quite remember but will paraphrase: “friend to all, obligated to none”.)
The first reason is moral/philosophical: We don’t have the right to interfere with that which is rightfully under the province of the government of another sovereign nation.
The second is pragmatic: We SUCK at it. Our interventionist follies have all given us more trouble with blowback than they have ever helped us up front. Let’s start with WWI - our late intervention gave England & France enough leverage to impose draconian terms on Germany, which lead to the misery under the Weimar Republic, which facillitated the rise of the Nazis, which lead to WWII.
When WWII came along, we had been poking Japan in the eye for a while, resulting in the attack on Pearl Harbor. We declared war on Japan, then Germany & Italy were required by the terms of the Axis treaty to declare war on us.
Had we sat that one out, the Eastern Front would still have been the undoing of Hitler. (You can’t conquer a land mass that large. Lots of folks have tried & failed. You only govern a land mass as large as Russia with the buy-in of the governed on some level or other.) The difference would have been a stalemated WWII that may well have ended in the collapse of BOTH Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. No Red Scare, no Cold War, no proxy wars in Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Grenada…
Iraq is not a blip on the radar, an abberation; it is the full flower of our interventionist “skills”. It’s how good we are at nation-building.
We should get back to what we can do and stop trying to teach a pig to sing. (It just frustrates you and annoys the pig. Then the pig flies straps on a suicide belt and blows up the slop trough.)