12 Killed, 31 Wounded at Fort Hood in Texas
John on November 5, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This just broke. Here’s a link to a live feed from the local NBC affiliate:
Officials told NBC DFW that one gunman is in custody and a second was on the run. KCEN-TV is reporting the gunmen were in military uniforms and that the second gunman is surrounded by police in a building on the post. KCEN is reporting that one policeman is down and that the gunman has a high-powered rifle and is shooting to kill.
I’ll add updates as they come in…
Here is a link to the local CBS affiliate which has a live feed. They are monitoring a TV station which is right beside the base. Also, CBS is now saying 30 wounded.
This is a huge base, several hundred square miles. There are something like 9 schools on the base. One of the shootings apparently took place in or near a movie theater.
No word on who was targeted or why…
First shooting began at 1:30PM. The FBI is now on the way to the site.
There were two shooters and two shootings at two seperate locations. The first shooting at 1:30PM, the second shortly after…
I’ve updated the headline. 12 dead and 31 wounded. One shooter is dead and two soldiers are in custody…Soldiers…
All involved were soldiers with the exception of one policeman who was killed.
The President is speaking…Offers prayers for the wounded and the families…
Oh boy…Shooter identified: Major Malik Nadal Hasan
He’s a doctor…a psychiatrist according to this McClatchy story:
According to the records, Hasan completed a residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. in 2007 and additional training in disaster and preventive psychiatry at Uniformed Services University Of the Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.
So I guess the headline could be “Psychiatrist Goes Nuts” but, given his name, I’m still wondering if Islam had anything to do with this.
He was just promoted in May.
CAIR is holding a press conference at 8PM…they have denounced the killings…
4PM – There is a Dr. Nidal Hasan listed as part of the Advisory Board of this Muslim prayer center in Chicago. Don’t know if it’s the same guy.
Great. This guy was a Va Tech grad from 1997. I’m so pleased my alma mater is tied to another mass shooting spree.
Also, his name seems to be Nidal Malik Hasan, not the other way around. That matches the name on the prayer center bulletin. His name (assuming it’s the same Dr. Hasan) is on the bulletins going back to February of 2009.
6:30PM -He’s alive, not dead. Ace has the news no one wants to report. Hasan wrote some comments sympathetic to suicide-bombers.
His cousin was on Fox saying he was always a Muslim, never changed his name and was called names by others for his faith. Hasan had hired lawyers trying to get out of deploying to Iraq. This, his cousin said, was the only reason for the shooting.
Someone that knew Hasan said he thought the US shouldn’t be in Iraq and that it was wrong for Muslims to fight Muslims, hence his reluctance to go.
Even though he’s alive, I’m not convinced we’ll get the full story anytime soon, if at all. Cho Seung-Hui mailed pages of material to a major news organization explaining himself and most of that material still hasn’t surfaced. Here again I suspect the media will settle on an angle and stick with it.
Was he a jihadist? Or just a nut? I suspect #1 will get passed over for political reasons.
10:30PM – The NY Times spoke to his imam in Silver Spring, MD:
The former imam at a Silver Spring, Md., mosque where Major Hasan worshiped for about 10 years described him as proud of his work in the Army and “very serious about his religion.” The former imam, Faizul Khan, said that Major Hasan had wanted to marry an equally religious woman but that his efforts to find one had failed.
“He wanted a woman who prayed five times a day and wears a hijab, and maybe the women he met were not complying with those things,” the former imam said.
I think efforts by his cousin to claim that Hasan’s faith had nothing to do with this are going to become increasingly thin. It may be true that he really wanted out of the military, but it sounds to me as if he wanted out because he was increasingly feeling himself on the other side. I’m thinking specifically of the e-mail he supposedly sent comparing suicide bombers to someone who jumps on a live grenade to save others. I’m thinking maybe he saw himself as a hero today.
Category: Crime & the Law |
NOT P.T.S.D. – AS KNEE-JERK LIBS REFLEXIVELY SHRIEKED.
BUT I.S.L.A.M.
November 5, 2009 @ 3:01 pmFox news just reported that he’s a Virginia Tech grad…
November 5, 2009 @ 4:06 pmWhat a surprise that we have another Muslim extremist killing our people, this time at one of our finest military base. I just knew when the reports first came out that the perpetrator would be some stinkin’ towelhead with an axe to grind. And lo and behold, here we have it. Just wait till the stories unfold on this camel-jockey. We’ll hear how he hated America and it’s war against Islam,,,blah…blah…blah. And what will the MSM report…he was under pressure because he didn’t want to go to Iraq – it will all be relegated to stress. And they’ll never mention the M word.
November 5, 2009 @ 5:17 pmNow an FBI guy was on with Olbermann and says there is an email where this towelhead mentions that acting like a suicide bomber and taking out Americans ready to go to Iraq would save Iraqi lives.
Another guy, Col. Terry Lee on Fox says this raghead said that Muslims should not be fighting Muslims.
Sounds to me like a camel jockey Muslim extremist to me. And now the bad news – it was just announced that this piece of human sewage is not dead. He apparently has survived his wounds. Let’s hope he is put to death by a military court as soon as this jackass recovers from his wounds.
November 5, 2009 @ 6:20 pmJim Bob, if you only had the ability to get beyond your toxic perception of the world, you might have something to offer.
Camel jockey, towel head, piece of human sewage, muslim extremist, and the bigoted name calling goes on. You seem so intent on showing your toxicity.
November 5, 2009 @ 6:42 pmYou don’t have to read it if you don’t like it old fool.
November 5, 2009 @ 7:35 pmJim,
I’m curious, in your opinion, are all Muslims Camel jockeys?
November 5, 2009 @ 8:20 pmJim Bob, I actually enjoy reading your melt downs. You expose your toxicity everytime you open your pie hole.
November 5, 2009 @ 8:23 pmI saw the info on the Dr. in Chicago who has the same name and, from what I can tell, he’s NOT the looney psycho Major (I mean military psychiatrist…now THAT is scary!) murderer (or I guess we’re supposed to say “alleged murderer”, right?) on Ft Hood. I lived in the Ft Hood area for 15 years and I still haven’t heard which KPD officer was shot….anyone know? I have lots of friends on Killeen PD and I just want to know who was involved. I’ve also found a few of his comments on various websites…..and i don’t know what’s worse, his comments or the comments he agrees with on those sites- talk about twisted!
November 5, 2009 @ 8:25 pmsources at virginai tech are confirming that cho and hasan knew each other while attending school at virginia tech. attack by hasan was identical to attack by cho, even down to using the exact same weapons. facebook site was discovered and before being yanked by feds listed what may have beem terror cell network. hopefully feds are looking at other areas of government, like nuclear bases and cdc biolabs to ensure more of these people haven’t been able to infiltrate something even more important. notice the media is doing everything it can to not list his being a muslim. hasan is listed as devout muslim, with parents from jordan. he also has brother in jerusalem who is reported to be on israeli watch list. another brother lives in virginia. feds will create story that says hasan was acting alone, a deranged loaner who had no terror ties and acted alone. he will be protrayed as mentally upset about having to deploy. unfortunatley, story may not hold up as former associates are coming forth with details about earlier planning. feds will clamp down on this story. my bet is that they will use the threat of courtmartial to keep military members quiet.
November 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pmHe was doing his IslamoFascist duty of jihad on soldiers that had every right to trust him. That’s what makes this so heinous. Anybody with that kind of name in the military should be shipped to GITMO and have a Koran shoved up his keister.
November 5, 2009 @ 9:39 pmGeoffrey, yes all Muslims are towelheads, ragheads, camel jockeys, etc. I don’t like them, I don’t trust them and their silence pertaining to 9/11 has been deafening. They believe in a Satanicaly inspired falsehood of a religion and are people that are not to be trusted. In short, they are reprobates.
And Roger, I’m glad I can amuse an old fool like you who probably delights in what happened today at Ft. Hood. You’re just a punk and a pussy.
November 5, 2009 @ 9:46 pmJust curious Roger and Geoffrey: are you more concerned about my anger at the heineous evil that took place today at Ft. Hood than the lives that were lost and the families that grieve tonight? Being a liberal, I know where you’re at Roger – probably high-fiving anyone in sight about our guys getting shot to death today.
November 5, 2009 @ 10:10 pmWB,
Hasan graduated in ’97. Cho would have still been in high school. Besides that, Cho didn’t socialize with anyone.
November 5, 2009 @ 10:31 pmBut what about someone with a name like Richard Reid?
November 6, 2009 @ 7:57 amGood point Keith, but he wasn’t in the military. The bottom line here is that Muslims in the military have their primary allegiance to their religion, and not their country. This guy felt, according to the FBI guy interviewed on the Olbermann show, that taking out American soldiers would reduce their chances of killing Muslims in Iraq. We can’t have jihadists in our military. More will come out about this guy and how he didn’t believe it was his place as a Muslim to go over to Iraq to help in the war effort. It’s just a terrible evil to go through your unit and shoot the people that trust you.
November 6, 2009 @ 8:59 amJim Bob, I served my country when I received my draft notice, and served with pride. I fly my flag, when appropriate, with the same pride and love of my country that any other patriot would.
Am I concerned about your anger at the heineous evil that took place at Fort Hood? I am equally upset that such a horrible act of violence took the lives of innocent victims, however it is your anger that is the issue. What I, liberals and conservatives, as well, are concerned with is your insane anger towards the world in general. My Muslim friends are equally appaled at what happened at Fort Hood, but since you seem to hate anyone who is not as narrow minded and demented as you, these people automatically fall into a group worthy of being hated.
Each time I call you out for being a hater monger and a bigot – what do you do – you say something to prove my point. You are one sick puppy who must be hell to live with. My condolences to your family.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:25 amGood morning Jim. As I woke up to read all of the comments this morning, your tone shocked me. I would ask you, as a sister, to be careful of generalizations of any kind. I know many Muslims, as they are the parents/families of my students, and I care for them and they me. We know where one another stands theologically, and wish would not wish harm or ill-will upon one another.
Please remember, we are commanded to love one another, to speak with kindness, and always be ambassadors within our communities. This blog falls within that realm of community. Hatred on one end looks and feels no different than hatred from another. It is just as ugly and frightening, and shouldn’t come from us. This of course doesn’t mean we are weak or condoning of evil acts, but we cannot act caustically when we have been called to be set apart for good.
I apologize if this comes across as harsh in any way. I prayed before I wrote it, and I have rewritten the words many times in hopes that I do not offend, as it is honestly not my intent. I know we all tend to get worked up and passionate about certain topics, and then words get tossed about, but it is at those times we should be our most careful and cognizant of who really are.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:45 amI heard this morning on the radio that Major Hasan’s extended family was completely shocked, appalled, and deeply saddened at what occurred, and is fully cooperating with the FBI.
Did anyone else hear President Obama’s address? He spent 13 seconds on the brutal attack, took a breath, and then delved right into minutes and minutes of the new Unemployment Bill. It was tasteless. I understand he wanted to share about the new bill, but he absolutely needed to save it for another time.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:54 amThis is all great. It’s great to make ourselves look better than the “bigot” by calling him on his “bigotry” despite the fact that yet another Muslim has gone on a jihad killing our countrymen.
The fact is that any Muslim can read Surahs 9:5, 9:29, and 9:111 as well as Sahih Bukhari and come to the same conclusions Muhammad did:
Basically, the people here commenting on how their Muslim friends are “shocked” are credulous fools, because what Hasan did is clearly advocated in both the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sirah.
They were shocked. They had no idea someone could come to those conclusions from Islamic texts. LOL.
They’re cooperating so they don’t get put on the next plane back to their Islamic country of origin (Palestine), which is not known for its pro-Americanism, btw. Come to think of it, no Islamic country is.
Call me crazy, but I’ll take a “bigot” any day over people who forsake common sense about what is plainly obvious about Islam.
Last I checked, governments were supposed to maintain good order and protect their citizens. Bringing more Muslims into this country to go on a Sudden Jihad is going to have the exact opposite effect of maintaining order and protecting citizens.
November 6, 2009 @ 10:42 amWell said PRCalDude. I don’t care if people call me a bigot for the words I’ve used to describe these jihadists. I too doubt their sincerity when it comes to them expressing shock about one of their fellow Muslims carrying out the commands of the Koran. I know Muslims too and I know where their ultimate loyalty lies. Don’t be surprised if one of these peace-loving jihadists walks into South Coast Plaza this Christmas and blows himself/herself up to further the cause against the infidel.
And Cindy your words were well written but I am not compelled to follow them. Thanks anyway.
I’m a guy who would have loved to have been at Joshua’s side with a sword as the Lord gave him the command to go into the cities of the “ites” and wipe out every man, woman and child. For that matter, being in David’s army would have suited me as well.
Bottom Line: We’re in a war with these people and their ultimate loyalty when push comes to shove is not with this country or with our faith. If that makes me a hatemonger than so be it. I identify more with the Jesus who cleaned out the moneychangers and the other evil doers from the temple. Interesting way to show love, eh?
November 6, 2009 @ 11:22 amSo, P.R. you’re claiming name calling and generalizations are a good way to go about this?
Come on, now.
To give you a first-hand example: When a family member of mine did some stuff that was questionable (nothing violent or harmful btw), and it became public knowledge after he was confronted by those who found out, our whole family was sincerely shocked. We had no idea that he was involved in what he was. So, to say that I was “shocked” is not a lie. It, in actuality, was an understatement. He was able to hide what he was doing, from all of us.
Did I know he was capable of it? Sure.
Did I think he was doing anything like it? No.
We are all capable of evil things, even those who claim the name of Jesus, right?
I guess I am just not as contemptuously distrustful of people.
But then again I am a blonde, and we all know what that means…
November 6, 2009 @ 11:33 amAnd Jim, thank you for your kind response to me. I do appreciate it.
November 6, 2009 @ 11:47 amYou know what’s funny? All of the a priori name calling in this case was entirely accurate. The guy was no different than the ones we’re fighting overseas despite his citizenship. He provoked people with his Muslim attire when not in uniform, proselytized (issued da’wa, which is a declaration of war, btw), and then acted amidst shouts of “allahu akbar.” Pious Muslims are jihadist Muslims.
In this case, he was hiding it in plain sight.
Wut?
What you’re not getting through your head is that Muhammad did such things and advocated the same. Muhammad is the Muslim par excellence. He wasn’t some peaceful guy like Jesus. How can you even mention Jesus in this context?
Followers of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world are not, by definition, going to act like followers of a guy who claimed that “paradise is found under the shade of swords.” At least, if they do, they’re doing it in spite of what they’re taught. Muslims are simply characterized by violence against unbelievers because that is how their religion has spread for over 1000 years.
November 6, 2009 @ 11:51 amName calling, accurate? What are we, 12?
Broad-brushing everyone is not fair or correct. You are not going to convince me otherwise, no one is.
Hiding in plain sight, or not, my point is that it’s actually possible for family members to be shocked.
I am taking a break from this, and agreeing to disagree. I know we see eye-to-eye on other topics and look forward to that banter instead.
November 6, 2009 @ 12:10 pmDo yourself a favor. Why don’t you read(!) through the Qur’an and try to understand how it’s interpreted? If that’s too much of a chore, just learn how it’s interpreted and organized. Then you can jump to the most authoritative parts.
Did you ever follow Robert Spencer’s series “Blogging the Qur’an?”
I remember when Mike Horton and the gang at the White HOrse INn had a former Islamic jurist on his show. He was from Egypt. When he converted to Christianity, he had to leave the country because he was told he was going to be executed. If I can dig up his name, perhaps he’d be worth a read. So is “The Dark Side of Islam” with Sproul.
Is it afternoon yet? I need a scotch. lol.
November 6, 2009 @ 12:22 pmHere’s another one for the “see no evil” types:
Hiding.in.plain.sight!!@!!!111!!!
November 6, 2009 @ 12:31 pmI think we can all agree that this guy was a jihadist and a murderer. He’s going to get the death penalty and, personally, I’m all for it.
I think we can also agree that this isn’t an isolated incident. Islam is uniquely violent among the world’s religions, certainly in the last 50-75 years.
And yes, there do seem to be a lot of silent Muslims who don’t vocally advocate violence but also don’t seem all that bothered by it when it happens. You do have to wonder what they’re thinking. There are even groups like CAIR that are vocal about denouncing this sort of thing, but which in my view are being somewhat disingenuous. Finally, you have to love our media which raves about the “climate of violence” when abortionist George Tiller is shot, but can’t bring itself to say much about Islam as a possible cause even after 13 are killed and 30 injured.
That said, there are a lot of Muslims in the world who haven’t joined the Baathist reformation. There are even some sects who are explicitly non-violent. So the broad brush, while truer than a lot of people want to admit, is still a bit too broad at times for my taste.
The other problem with calling people “towelheads” or whatever else is that it just hands others a reason to marginalize and ignore you. The fact is most people will see the slur and the broad brush attack on Islam and skip right over whatever actual point you were trying to make. So it’s not fair to some real people who aren’t jihadists and it’s counter-productive as far as alerting people to the real dangers.
This isn’t Little Green Footballs. I don’t patrol the comments or ban people who offend me or my sensibilities. Scott and I were committed to the absolute right of people to say whatever they want when we created this blog because our view is that everyone is responsible for what comes out of their own mouth. Simply put, I’m not your mommy. But for the record, I don’t care for it and I think it probably hurts the credibility of the blog among the thousands of people who read it everyday.
November 6, 2009 @ 1:13 pmMy contributions here John don’t lend any credibility to this blog nor is that my intention. Also, if my arguments are lost in my vitriol towards those who perpetrate evil, than so be it. When push comes to shove, any Muslim given a gun and told to kill another Muslim is violating the Koran. I’m confident that VS will survive despite the words I choose to use to describe various groups. I’m not here to win anybody over.
November 6, 2009 @ 1:41 pmAs an easy example of how to go about things: For the most part, PRCalDude contributed facts and interpretations from the quran etc. to back his belief that the Muslim faith in general is largely responsible for the crime in Texas. He did it without name calling but expressed the same points as Jim, and in my opinion more articulately and effectively.
Jim used mostly invective and venom to assert his belief that the Muslim faith in general is largely responsible for the crime. Not much accomplished there.
November 6, 2009 @ 1:42 pmBaathism is Arab nationalism. It’s not explicitly Islamic. I’m not sure why you bring it up. I’m not sure what sects of Islam you claim are non-violent. Can you name any?
“Towelhead,” while an unhelpful term, is nevertheless accurate as Islam is the religion of Arab supremacism and Arabs wear towels on their heads. Consider the imam of the mosque in Detroit that was just raided. He’s not an Arab, but he sure is trying to be one, complete with what looks to be a towel or rug on his head and a henna-dipped beard.
I’m not sure the goal, at this point, should be trying to convince people of the truth. Rather, truths should simply be stated as clearly and unPeeCeely as possible.
Muslims in this country need to be deported. You cannot be a citizen of teh United States in good faith and simultaneously a Muslim. Islam forbids it and CAIR has made this point numerous times itself. We don’t need more people in this country going on shooting rampages, setting up mosques, and harassing non-Muslims.
I don’t care how nice these people claim to be or whether or not anyone goes to school with them or is friends with them. I don’t care. They have to go. Preferably, before another Beslan or full-fledged Kosovo.
November 6, 2009 @ 1:52 pmI took issue with name-calling and generalizations, and therefore you choose to belittle me and suggest that I read(!) the Qur’an? Not a very effective response, sorry.
I agree that what this guy did was absolutely horrific. However, neither you, nor Jim, will ever be able to convince me that all Muslims would do the same thing. The word “all” being key here PR. That’s what Roger asked, what Jim answered, and what started my response, that, and that alone.
November 6, 2009 @ 2:44 pmIf Israel can accommodate an Arab population of ~20% than I think we can co-exist with whatever number of citizens of Muslim faith that we have here.
The history of America has included the assimilation of peoples of various cultures and religions from all over the world. Who, importantly, have adopted our language, and many if not all of our shared traditions, values, and aspirations. From a secular standpoint, at least. This has served our nation well, I believe, as evidenced by the numerous contributions to our society which have been made by people of diverse backgrounds. And on a more local/personal level, all the friends and even family members of various backgrounds that most of us have.
The real problem is the encroachment of a liberal ideology which under the guise of “diversity” is enabling cultural elitism and destroying our shared identity as a nation. It’s far worse than this, in fact, as this same ideology vilifies our traditional values and the historical exceptionalism of our nation. (Primarily because it’s been driven predominantly by…gasp…white males.)
Look no further than the UK to see where this will lead…
November 6, 2009 @ 2:51 pmYeah, I doubt anything will be effective with you.
“All” do not have to do anything. A relatively small percentage of young males of fighting age need to agree to do something to give the most powerful military in the world an 8-year-long war. The rest give approval either through their silence or outright support.
November 6, 2009 @ 4:03 pmFirst of all, is this true? Maybe post-1965 immigration “reforms” foisted on us by Ted Kennedy. I have yet to find a conservative who would argue that America has been headed towards anything but decline since then.
This is your belief. Do you have any data? All the data actually gathered on the subject points in the exact opposite direction.
What does this even mean?
To be honest with you, I don’t find any daylight between your position and that of your standard Leftwing multiculturalist. How’s it all working out for us with open Mexican invasion and Islamic jihad?
November 6, 2009 @ 4:11 pmPRCalDude, I’m with you all the way. The towelheads have got to go. We’ve got to close the borders and deport the border-jumpers. America is wasting away, it’s not getting better. Everyones got their head in the sand but we’re not far from suicide bombers blowing Americans up in our own streets. First, a military base, next South Coast Plaza or some other heavily populated area. And what will the peaceful towelheads do when this occurs? Sit on their hands and talk about how horrible this is while privately celebrating the death of the infidel. Their religion is incompatible with our republic.
November 6, 2009 @ 5:54 pmPR,
My bad, meant to say Wahhabism, not Baathism.
The Sufis are generally more mystical and less political. They are generally more peaceful than the Wahhabists/Salafists.
“Whitey” can be accurate too, it’s still a slur. I don’t think we want to go there. I don’t anyway.
That’s unwarranted and is never going to happen. Can we stay in the real world?
That’s evident. It’s also why it’s difficult to take you seriously on the whole immigration issue.
What’s that supposed to mean? Cindy rightly pointed out that you went from being upset over one terrible event to castigating millions of people without exception. She gave a counter-example from her own experience which proves the broad brush you used was an absurd overreach. Is she supposed to discount her own experience on the basis of your opinion, sans any sort of argument or evidence? Wow! Is your opinion of yourself really that high?
This is the problem with the whole broad brush approach. It only takes one counter-example to junk the whole thing. As a result, some points that are undoubtedly worth making get tossed out without being really considered because you insist on saying things like “Deport them all!”
November 6, 2009 @ 6:11 pmA few thousand people read this blog daily, Jim. Unfortunately only a dozen or so comment regularly. I think a lot of them, like me, disagree with making broad brush attacks on an entire class of people and using ethnic slurs to do so.
I just want to make it clear that it’s not representative of the opinions of the authors of the blog. I hope people get that and don’t simply tune us out because of the language you choose to use.
November 6, 2009 @ 6:21 pmJim and PR, you guys are almost laughable. Fear is motivating you. You are not real warriors; you are not professional warriors. Not even spiritual warriors. You are scared. You are not willing to pray for nor forgive your enemies first. You are not willing to die or watch your loved ones die with peace in your heart. You think you can battle in this condition? You think you can justly kill them and destroy their lives? Many of your complaints and conclusions are correct, but because of your heart, your cause is unjust. It’s obviously not righteous anger that’s driving you. It obviously not the love of Jesus that’s driving you. It’s just plain politics, control, and fear. Just like the Muslims. You have little faith in this area.
You remind me of the loudmouthed guys who couldn’t wait to deploy and get their first confirmed kills- they were the ones who came back with the nightmares and the drinking problems. Knock this crap off, you’re giving Christ a bad name.
November 6, 2009 @ 6:22 pmEarl, I’m quite confident that Jesus can survive whatever I post here – I don’t have that low of an opinion of Him. Righeous anger is driving me and that’s for me to decide, not you. My sister-in-laws father had that same righteous anger when he was dropping bombs on Berlin in WWII maiming, killing and ruining the lives of the elderly, children and their mothers. Jesus says to love your enemies. Was he loving them then? Would you tell him to go back to his base and knock this crap off? Get in the real world Earl. We’re in a war right now and towelheads will do what their Iman commands them to do. When the suicide bombs start detonating in the U.S., you guys may alter your view a bit.
November 6, 2009 @ 6:42 pmCan a conservative with a highly publicized blog really be this ignorant?
Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab’s teachings are in line with orthodox Hanbali teachings. He also revived the juridical rulings of Ibn Taymiyya, THE most famous Hanbali jurist who lived in the 13th century (also the favorite jurist of OBL).
The Hanbali school teaches violent jihad against nonbelievers. So do the other 3 schools of Sunni jurisprudence.
Hah! This is laughable. Have you read any of al-Ghazali’s writings on jihad? He was not only the most famous Sufi, but regarded as the most pious Muslim after Muhammad.
‘One terrible event’? What planet are you living on? If she’s so correct, then what happened to the millions of Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians that used to live all throughout the middle east and Anatolia? Better yet, what happened to the million or so in Iraq in this decade? What happened to about a million Armenians in Turkey? What happened to about 50 million Hindus in India during Arab occupation?
Are you a Holocaust denier also? All you and she are doing are parroting the likes of CAIR and other arms of taqiyya from the Muslim Brotherhood.
You know what’s really funny? I can use the same line of argumentation with you (despite the fact that I have tons of examples, not one). She’s got one example, so I’m supposed to paint the rest of the Muslims in this country with her broad brush. “Oh, well, my neighbors are cool (despite the fact that I don’t know what they say in the privacy of their own home or at their mosque) so most of the rest are probably cool as well.”
Did you know lying to the infidel is perfectly ok in Islam?
LOL. “I’m not like that crazy over there!” Can conservatism be anymore bankrupt intellectually at this point?
November 6, 2009 @ 7:01 pmNo, what motivates me is my study of Islamic texts and the high correlation I see between Islamic texts and actions.
I don’t know what you mean with all this warrior business. LOL. OOOOOOOKay. I’m not.a.warrior. Got it.
MOving on.
I don’t know where this comes from (certainly not from anything I’ve said), so I don’t think I’ll touch it. Is there another PRCalDude here writing this stuff to which you’re responding?
Did I bring Christ into this? YOu’re the one who keeps bringing him up. And everyone else devoid of any knowledge of comparative religion. Self righteousness is fun, right!
Whatever, Dad. I’ll be sure to take your points under advisement.
November 6, 2009 @ 7:08 pmI’m going to go ahead and assume that you would exclude all the waves of immigrants from various western and eastern european countries dating back to our founding – presumably because most of them espouse some form of Christianity. However, this still does not account for the substantial number of immigrants from Asian countries prior to 1965: China, Japan, Korea, and even India. All of which, IMO, have enriched our culture and contributed disproportionately in relation to their numbers in many scientific fields (as one example). And I’m not even sure I want to know how Jewish immigrants factor into your thinking.
I think you understood what I said, or could have if you really wanted to. Let me re-state in another way and say that I believe America for centuries now has served as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for people all over the world. To the extent that people of other nations have come to this country in recognition of this, and with a dream of becoming Americans, this has been a net gain for
allmost of us. And the fact that we have regularly opened our doors to the persecuted and economically downtrodden is a further testament to our greatness IMO.Where liberals have perverted this tradition is in the promotion of multiculturalism and the demonization of traditional American identity/values and exceptionalism.
Well, apparently that’s because for you there is no daylight between “let’s deport all the towel-heads” and the enshrinement of sharia law in our constitution. And I’m trying hard to see the daylight between your perspective and the mentality that has led to more than one holocaust in history.
People should ultimately be judged based on their actions, not their beliefs. As least when it comes to the application of law by the state. There are a lot of religions and most of them include some nutty beliefs and fringe proponents. I am no expert on Islamism, but I have seen plenty of atheists attack Christianity by quoting selective verses from the Bible.
I don’t think we advance our faith, or our greatness as a nation, through the wholesale rejection of a group of people based on their chosen faith. Jesus died for their sins too.
November 6, 2009 @ 7:39 pmJohn, I’m sure the average person can distinguish my writings from yours and know that what I say is not indicative of what you believe relative to IslamoFascists and Muslim’s in general. So I think your blog is safe here. The thousands who visit this site will change their mind relative to the towelheads when suicide bombers start bombing crowded places in the U.S.. If 9/11 didn’t convince them then maybe those bombings will convince them that the Muslim world has declared war on us. The silent/peaceful ones will offer faint protest fearful that if they’re too vocal there will be retaliation. The others will be dancing in the streets of the Mideast joyous over the deaths of the infidels – all in consistent teaching with the Koran.
November 6, 2009 @ 8:12 pmMorgen, Jesus death was sufficient for all (including Muslims) but efficient only for the elect (stolen from Augustine – I admit it). Muslim’s dying today and going to hell surely are not benefiting from the atonement.
November 6, 2009 @ 8:19 pmWell, I’m as liberal as they come, and I have to agree – Islam seems to be the most likely reason for his decision to kill.
“Kneejerk liberal” Feh.
It would be irresponsible for news agencies to start spouting off about religious motivations before all the facts were in. I’m sure that didn’t stop some, but for me to express the above opinion is one thing. For a major news outlet to do so is another thing entirely.
It’s an ethical consideration – going off about “jihadists in the military” on CNN or Fox would be tantamount to decairing open season on American Muslims in particular and olive-skinned people in general.
Give Glen Beck a chance though. I’m sure he’ll come through – if he hasn’t already.
November 6, 2009 @ 8:39 pmOne point though – what percentage of mass murderers in America are muslim, and how does this compare to the population in general.
After all, we have plenty of white shooters. The virginia tech guy was at least partly asian, and other racial and ethnic groups are represented as well.
Aren’t you guys being kind of prejudice against muslims? I mean, don’t they have as much right to be mass murderers as anyone?
November 6, 2009 @ 8:44 pmThey are no more or less deserving of God’s grace than we are. Whether they accept it or not.
At the risk of prolonging this dispute…when exactly did the “Muslim world” declare war on us? 9/11? Beirut? 1948?
We are at war, and I think what we would probably agree on is that we are not projecting the type of force necessary to be victorious.
But we are at war with proponents of an ideology who are willing to commit the most heinous and barbaric acts. They may draw inspiration for these acts from Islam, but at this stage the proponents and perpetrators of violence represent a relatively small faction.
We can keep it this way not by seeking “common ground”, or dealing with “root causes”, but by making sure that they and the nations/communities that support them pay a very steep price for any attacks against us.
There’s a reason why our homeland has not been attacked by Al-Qaeda since 2001. And I’m pretty sure our Special Forces and CIA operations have had a lot more to do with this than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I only hope the current Administration has not done anything to curtail this.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:10 pmActually I’d like to apologize for that last post. I meant it as a joke, but upon reflection it was insensitive and in poor taste.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:12 pmIt doesn’t depend on whether they accept it or not Morgen. I’m a Calvinist, not an Arminian. My views on man and his will and God and His grace are beautifully encapsulated by Paul in Romans 9. But that is a side issue.
By the way, the most recent reports have this towelhead yelling “God is great” before killing our people. This will eventually be ruled an act of jihad by a Muslim extremist. I am convinced that Muslims throughout our country are privately celebrating this cowardly act. After all, he was only obeying the Koran.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:22 pmWhat IS the type of force necessary to be victorious? How do you measure victory? If you want to be safe from Muslim religious extremists then you have to eradicate the ideology from the face of the earth.
Are you prepared to kill 1 billion people? If not then you will have to find some way to identify who your enemy is. How will you do that? Anyone could be a jihadist. You don’t know what’s going on in a person’s head (much less God’s head but that’s another thread topic).
If your objective is to make Afghanistan safe for democracy, well, dream on. I don’t think Islam is compatible with democracy. At least not the kind of Islam you find in the Middle East. I’m sure some moderate Muslims exist, but the authoritarian religious extremists have the political power in that part of the world.
Just like the authoritarian religious extremists had control of the USA up until last year BTW. Fortunately Christianity is a less toxic religion than Islam is.
It’s easy to drop an opinion like this. Especially if it’s consistant with your political agenda (i.e. anti-Obama), but let’s face it. It’s a pretty meaningless statement, no?
November 6, 2009 @ 9:23 pmI can’t believe that I actually agree with some of the things you said in #51 Paul. That’s a first for you and I.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:27 pmPersonally, I think that the best long-term solution to fighting terroism is to:
A) Resolve the economic injustice in the world – i.e. reduce the wealth of the wealthiest 5% and use it to eliminate poverty (don’t ask me how, If I knew that we would have done it already)
B) Educate people that the only valid way to find the truth is through evidence-based reasoning. And specifically, I think we need to educate people that divine revelation is not a valid form of knowlege.
As long as people believe crazy magical stories, you can get them to do pretty much anything.
Of course that will put a lot of theologians out of work, but that’s no real loss.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:28 pmWrong again Jim! You agreed with me once before a few months back IIRC ;-)
November 6, 2009 @ 9:29 pmI would define “victory” as something quite a bit short of this. But I concede that “victory” is probably not the best choice of words since we aren’t talking about victory in the traditional sense over a nation/state.
I think a definable “victory” would be some combination of the eradication of all active terrorist cells, the denial of safe havens for recruiting and training operations, and the cutting off of significant financial support from hostile governments and other entities. Preferably all of the above. But a very tall order of course.
Liberal undermining of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lies and exaggerations over torture and Gitmo, have signaled weakness and emboldened our enemies.
We should have used massive and overwhelming force to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan after 9/11, and pursued them into Pakistan if necessary.
And once Iran began clandestinely engaging us in Iraq, we should have immediately responded with force.
I’m sure there were complicated geopolitical factors which led our decision-makers to pursue a different course. But as of now, it seems this will lead to more difficult and costly decisions down the road.
The same could be said for your comment about eradicating Muslims, as I’m sure you see similar merits in doing the same with Christian ideology if not Christians themselves.
November 6, 2009 @ 9:49 pmRight thought, wrong word. BFD.
No, but I read the news and I don’t see the Sufis connected to mass murder very often. If you have a recent counter-example, I’m listening.
What happened to the Jews living in the Levant in the 13th century? What happened to blacks living in the south of this country during the 18th century? It’s easy to play this game and extrapolate from various incidents of religiously motivated violence to blanket statements about entire classes of people. Are you guilty by association with their faith?
No I’m just educated enough to realize that the holocaust hasn’t always been the fault of one group. In fact when it comes to holocausts I’d say it’s Communists in 1st place, Islamists in 2nd and Christians trailing 3rd.
Again, I’m not parroting CAIR. I’m saying that I personally know Muslims who are not and could not be mass murderers. Cindy does also. The fact that you don’t know any Muslims and don’t want to know any does not strengthen your case.
No. Not what she said and not what I said. Here let me help you…all the way back to #28 where I said:
I’m not whitewashing this. I’m saying it’s a real threat with a frightening amount of support in every Muslim community. But it’s still a long way from there to “Deport all Muslims.”
I never said crazy. Rude. Crude. Unnecessarily offensive. Off-putting. Counter-productive. Take your pick. I don’t care for ethnic slurs like “camel jockey.” You really want to defend that?
November 6, 2009 @ 11:17 pmMorgen, so I’m biting.
Where is that, then?
November 6, 2009 @ 11:59 pmDo you even know what fraction Sufis are of total Muslims? It’s vanishingly small. But they still preach violent jihad.
Do you ever read any of Robert Spencer’s, Daniel Pipes’, etc. stuff, or are they just all screaming at a wall? I mean, what is the point of conservatism nowadays if it can’t even be bothered to understand what it’s talking about?
So you have no answer to my questions? You don’t know what happened to the non-Muslims conquered in all of those lands who were initially an overwhelming majority and were whittled away into disappearance over the centuries (or oftentimes very quickly)?
All your doing by bringing up the Crusades and slavery is just parroting CAIR yet more.
What is your proposal? You mentioned how Israel is getting along just fine with its 20% Muslim population. You conveniently left out the demographic panic Israel was having over Arab birth rates in its own country, and how they have the same Sudden Jihads there as well forcing everyone to be armed to the teeth. Civilians carry SMGs in the streets there. Would you like to live in a garrison society? Would you like to live where rockets are falling on you continuously due to the proximity of Muslim neighbors?
Then there are the cases of France, the UK and all the other European countries. France is 10% Muslim and suffers from constant low-intensity warfare by its Muslim population. We hear stories about jihad from the UK all the time. I guess the question is, “Do you want the same to happen to the US?” No? Then there’s no way around the immigration question. If you want a free country where your kids can grow up without the threat of violence, then maybe its time to carry your various positions to their logical conclusions. More Islamic immigration means more terrorism, more shari’ah and more “no-go” zones for kuffar, like Dearborn MI and other places. We already have a huge problem with them being only 2% of the population.
You’re a conservative. It’s high time you ask yourself what your conservatism will actually conserve? A United States transformed by hostile immigration? Yeah, that’s worth conserving about as much as Afghanistan is worth our current efforts.
From where I sit, all conservatism nowadays appears to represent is whining about the Dems and Obama, who is thus far scarcely different than GWB.
No, this is your assumption.
I wish you could have been at that Irvine city council meeting I attended where Muslim after Muslim got up and denounced STeven Choi for pointing out that a CAIR candidate was running against him and CAiR is a terrorist organization (true). I wish you could be a Jew attending UCI sometime. I wish you could have attended some of the pro-Palestinian rallies i attended in LA to take pictures. You’d experience some real Islam then.
But you’ve managed to keep yourself off of the Muslims’ radar. Good job.
November 7, 2009 @ 12:50 amMy niece who is Jewish is experiencing the nightmare of dealing with the towelheads at UCI. She doesn’t know if another quarter is worth her time.
John, this is a first. Your arguments are weak. I think you’re in over your head with PRCalDude. Defending the wonderful peace loving Muslims won’t get you anywhere. Their ultimate loyalty is to the Koran. I wonder just how many towelheads are in our military right now and are up to no good. Only time will tell. If they go to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill fellow Muslims they’re violating their own religion. Maybe we don’t need to deport them, but they must be watched very closely. They are not our friends.
November 7, 2009 @ 8:55 amYes I do. I’m also familiar with the numbers from surveys in England about support for jihad. The numbers are high but still less than a plurality. A significant number of Muslims do not support violent jihad. I realize this doesn’t fit with your theory, but it’s a fact nevertheless.
I gave a clear answer. It just wasn’t one you liked.
I really don’t get why you can go back hundreds of years in history to dig up evidence of the nefarious nature of Islam, but when I do the same with Christianity your only respsonse is “you’re parroting CAIR.” No, I’m pointing out that your argument is one-sided and doesn’t take into account all the facts. Either historical massacres are valid evidence of toxic faith or they are not. If they are then Christianity is not exempt. If they aren’t then your arguments aren’t admissible either. Take your pick…
We can not “deport” all Muslims. Let’s examine what a colossally stupid statement this is. First of all, there are millions of Muslims in the US, most of whom are here legally, many of whom were born here and some of whom are converts who have no experience with the Middle-East (or any predominantly Muslim nation).
Question: How does your “Deport ‘em!” plan work? Do we need a legal justification or do we just form posses and strip people of citizenship because we don’t like their looks? If we do need a legal justification, what is it? Which court do you suppose will uphold it?
I’m sure you’ve really thought this through, so go ahead and lay it out.
November 7, 2009 @ 9:23 amKeith, I meant…uhh…Denmark…not the UK. ; )
No, actually I’m glad you asked because I’d be interested in hearing your perspective on this. And I’m sure you are more knowledgeable on this than I am.
I was referring primarily of the decision to allow sharia courts to operate legally within the UK, in enforcing at least some of their laws within the Islamic community. This seems to be a very dangerous precedent and a breech of basic principles of sovereignty.
I was also thinking of Islamic protests such as these which I’d like to think would not be tolerated in the U.S.
There has to be a line between freedom of speech and religion and outright sedition.
November 7, 2009 @ 9:34 amPR, honestly I think it’s attitudes such as yours that justifies the existence of a group like CAIR, if not all their actions.
I suppose you also see nothing wrong with the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII?
As John pointed out, there are many Muslim citizens of the U.S. (1-2 million at least) who were here prior to 9/11, and had nothing to do with that attack or any other attack on the U.S.
The epicenter of liberal multiculturalism and America-bashing is located in many of our universities, so I’m not surprised to hear you cite this as an example from personal experience. I see this ideology as a much greater threat to our existence in the long run than Americans of Islamic faith, the majority of whom respect and value their identities as citizens of the U.S.
And of course anyone who plans, executes, or even advocates terrorist acts – or gives sanctuary or financial support to those who do – should be vigorously pursued and prosecuted.
I’m finished with this discussion. I don’t expect you to change your mind. I just thought it was important to make clear that your views are not representative of this blog, nor thankfully, do I think they are representative of conservatives in general.
November 7, 2009 @ 10:02 amAre you kidding? The story is not much better here. Are you just making stuff up? Even Iowahawk is a more reliable source of information on this than you and it’s a parody site.
What percentage of Muslims willing to engage in violent jihad is tolerable for you?
No, you dodged the question with another series of questions in the same manner as CAIR.
It’s high time you read through “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.”
The issue you seem to like avoiding is whether one religion’s believers do bad things in spite of rather than because of things contained in their texts. You have no way of answering that question with respect to Islam because you have no familiarity whatsoever with how the texts are read, interpreted, and understood by the world’s Muslims and the 4 Schools.
So you keep saying, “But the Crusades!” (as if they happened in a vacuum rather than as a response to 300 years of Muslim aggression) or “Slavery!”
Tell me, do you think things like Crusades and slavery of black people is supported by the Bible? If not, why do you keep bringing it up?
Conversely, do you know whether or not jihad is in fact “warfare for the spread of religion” (as the ‘UMdat al-Salik defines it) or something else? Right now, your basic argument is “My Muslim friends are nice people.” Well, so was Nidal Hasan until he wasn’t.
The legal justification is already inherent in Islam. Shari’ah is the constitution of Islam, and Muslims can, in good conscience, only subscribe to it. There is no Islam without shari’ah.
Invite Muslims here to 2 courses of action: 1) repudiate Islam or 2) sell their property, give up their citizenship, and leave.
Getting people to leave the US happens all the time with the border patrol. They put them on a plane and fly them out. I don’t care what happens to them when they get there. That’s there problem. I care about what happens to bona fide US citizens of the infidel type, not ones that subscribe to a socio-politico religion that is, by definition, perpetually at war with everyone. As Samuel Huntington put it, “Islam has bloody borders. We don’t need bloody borders within the US proper.
As Earl so helpfully put it, “I’m not a warrior.” I desire a nation where its citizens desire to live at peace with one another and don’t subscribe to a doctrine of “warfare for the spread of religion.” Let the Muslims live unmolested in their own countries. We don’t need to fight them. Our wars with them are meaningless and pointless. We just need to keep them out.
November 7, 2009 @ 11:37 amSo you think an organization that calls for the overthrow of the US Constitution with shari’ah, is funded by the terrorist organization teh Muslim Brotherhood, and has numerous directors in prison doing hard time for terrorist activities is justified because there are people who don’t want members of a violent religion living in their country? You do realize that CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial, don’t you?
Wow. This is a conservative blog, that desires more terrorist organizations in the US?
Wow. Just wow.
Yeah, and guess who’s brain has been infected with it? Hint: not mine! The “educated” types in this country have clearly been educated right out of touch with reality.
I know. That’s the problem. What has conservatism of your type done for us? Has it lessened Islamic terror in the US? Has it prevented hostile foreign nationals from moving here? Has it lessened the number of abortions? Has it done anything about “multiculturalism” and the Left wing control of our universities? Has it made the US more free economically? Has it reduced entitlements? What’s the score card looking like nowadays?
The problem with your conservatism is that it is basically a “No enemies to the Left” conservatism. It’s so concerned with being PC to avoid the Left’s intellectual terrorism that it simply drifts ever more left-ward. It just speaks in these whimpering platitudes and whines about the Left doing what it always does all the while becoming ever more like the Left.
The only thing I heard out of conservatives regarding this incident was complaints about the media refusing to report that this incident was, in fact, a jihad (and a valid one by all Islamic standards). Many conservatives can’t even bring themselves to do it. Many go on about “radical” Islam, which as it turns out, dates back to Muhammad.
You guys are actually sitting here schizophrenically defending Islam when it just produced the deaths of 12 of your countrymen. You’re justifying the existence of CAIR.
If that’s conservatism, I want no part of it.
November 7, 2009 @ 11:50 amAmen.
November 7, 2009 @ 1:09 pmAh, OK, I see, Morgen. The Sharia law thing is a bit misunderstood. The legislation that allows it was neve envisaged as having that affect. To quote from this Times article
So it’s an arbitration tribunal that is only binding if both parties agree to that in advance. It was a badly drafted bit of legislation and an unfortunate side effect, not noticed for a decade or so. Rowan Willims much misunderstood comment that Sharia law was inevitable in the UK was not calling for its introduction. I can imagine PR saying much the same, but not in a wishing for it kind of way.
As for the protests, those aren’t the worst images available. The thing is, I don’t think they breach any law, and we have our share of ‘Christian’ nutjobs who display similarly nasty slogans.
So, definitely not ideal, and we have more than our share of muslim extremists over here, but its not as bad as many people seem to think.
November 7, 2009 @ 2:47 pmPR,
Obviously there’s no good number since even .1% can potentially inflict terrible damage, as we saw on 9/11. But even the study you linked above shows that 51% of US Muslims are “very concerned about Islamic extremism.” It goes to 61% if you include those that are “somewhat concerned.”
So very nearly 2/3 of Muslims are explicitly rejecting the violent ideology. Nevertheless, your brilliant plan is to deport them all! I’m just waiting for you to say this is a bad joke.
Not avoiding it at all. In fact more than two years ago I wrote about the possibility that jihadism is the Islamic equivalent of the protestant reformation, i.e. getting back to basics. It’s a real concern and I’ve discussed it more than once.
But again, you’ve changed the subject. I was rejecting a) the needless slurs, like “towelhead” and “camel jockey” and b) the overreaction that says we should abandon even a pretense of civil rights and rule of law on which the citizenship and democracy itself rests and instead simply strip people of their rights and deport them based on their beliefs.
You have heard of the 1st Amendment, right? Freedom of religion ringing any bells?
So far as I know the United States has never demanded that any individual, much less any group of millions of people, renounce their citizenship under threat. And as bad an idea as this is, your justification for this it is even worse. Sharia law? How exactly does that apply in the US courts? How, specifically, does it trump the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion? I’m sure you have a great answer, I’m just waiting to hear it.
Even if we put all of that aside (freedom, rule of law, etc.) your plan would still fail to accomplish what you hope it will. Any such attempt to strip Muslim citizens of their rights en masse would backfire massively in a way that is utterly predictable (at least to people with a whit left to them). The number of Muslims supporting jihad would skyrocket overnight. You would indeed find yourself in a nation where it was unsafe to walk the streets without an M-16.
So to sum up, your plan is an obvious violation of the Constitution, meaning it’s illegal. And it would bring about the very thing you claim to want to avoid, making it also very stupid.
But other than that, it’s great.
November 7, 2009 @ 3:50 pmThe newspaper article I read this morning says there are thousands of Muslims in our armed forces. This gives me the creeps. There’s also a new book out about the infiltration of Muslims into our military. The point being that they are there for a purpose. I’ll say it again. I don’t trust these people and I know that when push comes to shove their religion gets their allegiance over their country. Suicide bombers are just around the corner as well. Is America the better for this infiltration? Absolutely not.
November 7, 2009 @ 5:02 pmOh, goodie, only 2 million of the US’s 6 million Muslims support violent jihad (the rest passively support it). Let’s let more move here!
Your main problem is your failure to understand Islam as it is. It’s not simply a religion, it’s its own constitution, legal system, and system of government. Does freedom of religion mean we must allow people that subscribe to the violent overthrow of any kuffar government through jihad and the replacement of the US Constitution with shari’ah law to live here? That seems awfully suicidal to me.
Freedom of religion, as understood in an Islamic context, means kuffar pay jizyah and live under 2nd class citizenship. Be sure to google “The Pact of Umar” for more information on what it entails.
It also means Muslims have the right to “warfare for the spread of religion” (‘Umdat al-Salik). Does that sound good to you?
“Freedom of religion” for Muslims means “slavery or death” for non-Muslims. Is this really so hard to grasp?
Your point?
The same way it applies in the UK. The Muslims keep pushing for more and more, and pretty soon they get it. Or they simply drive out enough kuffar in an area and set up their own courts, like in Detroit.
But if there’s enough of them, they can simply vote it in. Every group is someone’s constituency.
If such a thing were true (and this point utterly refutes all your nonsense about peaceful Muslims in our society), then we’d better hurry up and do it quickly.
Basically what you’re saying is that we kuffar had better do what the Muslims want in our country or we risk “radicalizing” them. The British have lived with this sort of mindset for years with ever more concessions and apologies to the Muslims. It’s sure working out great for them, right?
As far as I know, the Constitution doesn’t tolerate treason.
Until you start addressing some of the points I’ve made regarding the nature of shari’ah, Islam, and their relationship to infidels, as well as answering me regarding the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims throughout much of Asia, I’m through dealing with these pathetic dodges of yours.
November 7, 2009 @ 5:56 pmIt seems like Christians get pretty upset when they feel that their religion is being dissed. Especially in countries where they are in the minority. Muslims feel the same way in our country when they are being dissed by the likes of PRCalDude and Jim Bob. Lack of respect for ones culture and religion forces a minority to band together (strength in numbers). Blacks are no different. Brothers stick together. It has been no different with the Jews. When you show disrespect for any group of people you feed the festering hatred of the radicals within that group.
Ignorance and fear feed the mind of the bigot.
November 7, 2009 @ 6:52 pmNo, that’s not what the study you cited says. You’re just making shit up.
Not here it’s not. We have a law founded on the Constitution. That law forbids the restraint of individual beliefs. To violate that law is not only illegal but truly un-American in the most fundamental sense.
To willfully advocate the abrogation of the Bill of Rights is, to my mind, anti-American and borders on sedition. If you don’t like the Bill of Rights, maybe you should give up your citizenship.
Of course not, but we don’t preemptively punish people or strip them of their Constitutional rights because we think they might do something.
If someone tried to take away my right to freedom of religion and then steal my property and ship me and my family overseas, I’d be pretty angry about it. Would it justify murder, no. My faith mitigates against that, but at that point I am going to be loudly advocating for a velvet revolution.
Did you even read the definition? If you had you’d have seen that it explicitly rules out your deportation plan.
It does not say that we should judge a whole group of people treasonous because of what they think. They have to actually do something. Do you see the difference?
Seriously, you’re advocating that we ignore the plain language of the Constitution. Are there no alarm bells going off in your head?
November 7, 2009 @ 8:21 pmI guess it you think “shit” is okay John, I’ll keep saying “towelhead”. LOL
November 7, 2009 @ 8:55 pmJim,
I see a big difference. For starters, my comment wasn’t directed at a person much less a whole group of people.
If you want to be known for using ethnic slurs, that’s your choice. But name-calling is the weakest form of argument and I know you’re capable of a lot more.
November 7, 2009 @ 10:06 pmRe: Sharia law in the UK, just to clarify. It was not introduced due to pressure from British Muslims. It was not introduced, as such, at all.
It was made possible as an unforeseen side effect of a piece of poorly drafted legislation designed to free up court time by allowing arbitration panels to be legally binding if both parties agree. The cause of it, and the intended effect of it, was to unclog the legal system from the backlog of financially negligible, ‘everyday’ divorce cases by taking them out of the regular courts. There was no religious pressure, nor any giving in to religious pressure. The potential for Sharia courts wasn’t even noticed for almost a decade. This is not what everybody is making it out to be.
November 8, 2009 @ 9:16 amYou’re comments are very kind John and I appreciate that but I was joking. I’ll try and be more careful with what I say in the future when I’m struggling with my temper.
November 8, 2009 @ 9:41 amThanks Keith. I think the precedent is still at least a little troubling even though it was an unintended consequence, especially given the increase in extremism and violence over there the past 10 years.
But I’m not surprised to hear that the issue has been overblown, especially after seeing how some people grossly exaggerate our challenges with Islamic extremism here in the U.S.
November 8, 2009 @ 2:35 pmOh, the precedent is troubling, definitely. The most troubling thing is that I would love to be able to say “I’m sure legislators have tightened up the drafting of new laws to ensure we avoid this kind of unintended consequence.” But I think the opposite.
This government, particularly when it was led by Tony Blair, seem to pass a new law as the knee jerk reaction to every new problem, and it creates nothing but mess and confusion. To make matters worse, the conservative (next prime minister), David Cameron is Tony Blair with a blue rosette.
Jim – I so think it would strengthen your point if you did that. I, for one, don’t see beyond the stereotyping and (to my liberal sensibilities) offensive terminology and see what point you are making. Literally, I am blind to your arguments if you couch them in those terms.
November 8, 2009 @ 3:01 pmThanks, Jim. I appreciate that.
I did have a thought to add on the Sharia courts. As it happened my professor at Biola was telling a story last week about a situation he was involved in. It seems a couple of believers from the same church had decided to sue one another over a business matter. The suit was about to be filed when one of them happened to read the injunction about not suing fellow believers.
Anyway, the two men both felt uncomfortable with the lawsuit and wound up agreeing to a binding arbitration to be settled by my professor who is a theologian and a pastor. In the end, it was settled amicably for a small amount of money (much less than the lawsuits) and the two men put it aside in brotherhood and continued to attend the same church.
All of that to say, there is a Christian version of this idea where simple cases, with agreement by both parties, are resolved by an explicitly Christian arbiter with reference to the ideals of scripture as well as US law. I’m not sure how widespread this is, but my professor thought it was a terrific experience and wished it was employed more in situation like this.
November 8, 2009 @ 6:59 pmOnce again, you’re dodging. CAIR has specifically called for the overturn of the Constitution in favor of shari’ah law “through votes” as Ibrahim Hooper put it. The Muslim Brotherhood sponsors CAIR and also the 9/11 attacks. Hasan al-Bana, one of the founders of the MB actually toured America while he was still alive and called for bringing down the entire West.
The fact that Muslims have not currently succeeded in implementing shari’ah does not mean that they do not have plans to. They have announced their plans openly for anyone willing to look. You simply refuse. Nevertheless, supporting a replacement of the Constitution in favor of shari’ah, as Muslims must do to be Muslims, is an act of treason. The Constitution calls for the punishment of such people.
Nonsense. I’m simply (correctly) pointing out what Islam is. The fact that you keep attempting to re-define the religion (and much, much more) of Islam in the United States does not make it so. So, what is it? The Ummah in the United States is a seditious nation within a nation, and must be treated as such. Treason must be dealt with.
Can you imagine the United States allowing the Nazis to here during WWII and setting up recruitment centers? Can you imagine it allowing Nazism to operate here? Your line of thinking would have ended in all of us speaking German.
There wouldn’t be any pre-emption at all. As I stated some point earlier, 80% of the mosques in the United States are funded by Saudi Arabia, which means that a large chunk are hearing and funding an entirely traditional Islam advocated by the late Hanbali revivalist Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. By “revivalist,” I mean exactly that. He renewed interest in the teachings of 13th century Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya – the favorite jurist of Osama Bin Laden.
So we see here the direct “aid and comfort” of the enemy, if there is anyone yet left with the sense to see OBL and Saudi Arabia as our enemies.
The 2% zakat Muslims pay annually goes almost entirely to fund da’wa campaigns (a declaration of war against non-Muslims), and jihad (warfare for the spread of religion). The past 8 years has seen entirely too much of both in the US. Perhaps you want your children to see much more as they grow up. I certainly don’t.
“Velvet” revolutions are few and far between in history. The ones we’ve seen lately aren’t working out too well, are they?
The only revolution we’re likely to see is the continued spread of shari’ah egged-on by infidels unwilling to do the hard things necessary to preserve their way of life. A “velvet revolution” against such rule will just end with people like yourself face down in a ditch somewhere with your wife and children property of someone else. At least, that’s how the Banu Quraizah ended up when Muhammad got finished with them. Oh, the Jews of Khaybar as well.
In any case, I never advocated the theft of property. They’d be welcome to take the proceeds of the sales of their possessions with them. This is much more generosity than they’ve shown Copts fleeing persecution in Egypt, or Armenians fleeing Turkey last century, but I’m a magnanimous guy.
November 9, 2009 @ 12:08 amEastern Europe seems to be doing as well as anyone could’ve expected, same with South Africa. Any upheaval of the political make-up of a whole nation (or half a continent in the case of Eastern Europe) is going to take a while to bed in, but those democracies, at least, seem sound to me.
November 9, 2009 @ 5:27 amReally? Last I checked Russia re-established hegemony over those countries that had a “velvet revolution.”
Anyone who says that the “velvet revolution” in South Africa is “working out well” is not paying attention to South Africa’s transition back to the stone age or white ethnic cleansing. The crime rate is so bad that everyone who can afford it has their own private security. People with money live behind high walls.
If transition to a crime-ridden garrison society is “working out well” by your definition, I hate to see what “working out poorly” entails.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:24 amMy wife’s closest frined lives in South Africa. She lives in constant fear due to the high crime rate. Her house has security alarms and is fortified to prevent a break in. She wants out of the country and to come back to the U.S.. The only thing preventing her is here divorce (and there’s a child involved). The media doesn’t report on it but anarchy doesn’t seem that far away in South Africa.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:51 amYou know Jim and PR, I have been enlightened; you’re both so right. Kill all the muslims. Then, when we’re done, lets finish the job: kill all the communists/marxists/socialists. Of course we can identify the enemy among us, just ask them if they’ve ever read Grapes Of Wrath. These people are infiltrating our system, and their purpose is to overthrow the government; no, the entire world into an authoritarian technocratic uptopian dream land where they can:
A) Resolve the economic injustice in the world – i.e. reduce the wealth of the wealthiest 5% and use it to eliminate poverty (don’t ask me how, If I knew that we would have done it already)
B) Educate people that the only valid way to find the truth is through evidence-based reasoning. And specifically, I think we need to educate people that divine revelation is not a valid form of knowlege.
Think about it. These people kill babies, they HATE America, they don’t agree with the Constitution, they want to reorganize the courts in order to control society. We fought these people throughout the 20th Century in places like Vietnam, but it appears we have lost to the marxists. THEY’RE STIL HERE, TAKING OVER OUR GOVERNMENT. KILL THEM ALL, deport them, they’re a major threat. We need to conserve American principles of self government, self education, self reliance, self determination, freedom of religion for white Christian males; marxists are the polar opposite in their governing philosophies.
then we’ll move on to the Atheists when we’re done with the Marxists.
November 9, 2009 @ 6:18 pmCan you point me to where I advocated that?
Honestly, now I think you’re just projecting your own sick fantasies onto me.
November 9, 2009 @ 7:05 pmEarl, get your doc to prescribe some xanax.
November 9, 2009 @ 7:06 pmJim said:
It’s funny; I sometimes feel the same way when I hear about Christian Officers using boot camp as a tool for indoctrinating army recruits into the Baptist church.
Or that there are groups in the pentagon that are specifically working to recruit officers into the evangelical subculture.
Religion has a way of being sinister when it’s not your group that’s using mythology to control people’s minds doesn’t it?
Roger said:
This is a nice liberal sentiment (and as a liberal myself I DON’T mean that as an insult). The problem is that religion is not the same as culture or ethnicity. Blacks don’t choose to be black. Arabs don’t choose to be Arabs, All cultures have their mores and taboos, and their specific beliefs that make them members of the “in-group” in question. The problem is that many of these beliefs are factually incorrect.
A voodoo priest might kill a chicken to cure a fever, but it’s the chicken soup they make out of the bird that increases the chances that the patient gets better.
Human beings have all kinds of wrong ideas about cause and effect in this way. This leads to an ethical dilemma: Do you respect the beliefs or do you correct the ignorance? Personally, I believe that respecting people by giving them knowledge is more important than respecting the culture by leaving people ignorant.
Taking this ethic into religion, we have a special set of problems. People identify religion with who they are, even if their beliefs are wrong or downright immoral. So you have (for example) genital mutilation practices that are horrific, but viewed as a moral necessity by the established culture. Do you let people maim their children? I would vote no.
The so-called main stream religions are really no different. The problem with the Abrahamic desert cults is not that they disrespect each other, it’s that they are factually wrong on so many levels that once you start educating people you either get people losing their in-group (also called “faith), or you get “blow-back” like our American young earthers.
In short, belief and ideology should not be taboo to challenge. Calling it “religion” doesn’t change that. This is especially true for us liberals. We are often accused of being bleeding hearts who don’t believe in anything. Well, I believe in the values of the enlightenment. Civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms. The values of the enlightenment are MUCH better than any holy book for running a society.
I believe that knowledge is better than ignorance, ESPECIALLY when the truth is something you don’t want to hear or believe. I believe that humans have the psychological and moral strength to face the truth without fairy-tales, and that “I don’t know” is a FANTASTIC place to start when searching for truth. I think that religion robs us of this dignity.
Calling bullshit on another person’s religion is not disrespectful. It would be more disrespectful to allow a person to believe a wrong thing and to let it go uncorrected. If I’m wrong I want you to tell me I’m wrong. It would be immoral not to extend the same courtesy.
The bible is wrong. So is the Koran. Not always, but lots of times. Like the story of Genesis for example. That’s a bunch of nonsense. It is historically wrong. It’s a fairy tale.
The bible, the Koran, and the Torah are also morally wrong. They were all written by ignorant desert tribes who had a twisted idea of morality. You can’t obey an authority to the point where you are ready to sacrifice of your son and call yourself a moral person. Even if that authority is the creator of the universe. So we atheists get called “strident and shrill” when we call bullshit on the ridiculous histories and warped moral calculus of religion. But hey, no one said being reality-based was easy.
November 9, 2009 @ 7:52 pmBut apparently it’s moral to proclaim your own authority to sacrifice your unborn children at will.
November 9, 2009 @ 8:01 pmGeoffery, post #29
I have to hand it to you Geoffery, the text following this quote was VERY well expressed. My hat is off to you sir!
Granted that I completely disagree.
I agree that religion offers both cultural cohesion and moral traditions. But too often it does so at the price of entrenched dogma and ignorance. Also there is the nasty side effect that religion has of excommunicating anyone who asks too many questions.
Death and/or hellfire for apostates is a crude form of totalitarianism plain and simple.
If I were to translate this part of your post into my own way of thinking I would put it this way:
Religion is a form of technology. It is a technology that is used by people to inform and shape their moral experience. One of the features of this technology is that because it posits supernatural agency, by it’s nature it cannot be disproven.
This feature means that it is extremely stable. Since you can’t disprove the core beliefs, you can’t really topple the edifice it stands on from the inside. So long as the religion serves the majority of its adherents, it will continue until conditions change that destroy the religion (economic change, low birth rate, religious wars etc.).
This feature also causes it to fracture a lot. Leaders can emphasize different parts of the cannon in order to get political power. This leads to schisms.
This also explains why Christians, Jews and Muslims don’t like evolution much – It attacks the core beliefs of these faiths. If we evolved then Genesis is a fairy tale. If Genesis is not true then there is no original sin. No original sin, no need to repent and the whole social structure falls apart.
This is (probably rightly) viewed as a moral threat to society. After all, how will society cohere if we don’t all fear hellfire? What we need is a new (and realistic) mythology; one that includes evolution and the provisional nature of science as part of the moral code. Unfortunately this has not yet evolved.
First, I see what you are getting at, but I would use the word “insight” instead of revelation. Further, I would agree that some insights require a fund of knowledge that make them hard to explain. For example, I have some ideas about human behavior that I’m pretty sure are true, but I can’t test them, and only other people who are versed in evolutionary psychology have the fund of knowledge needed to make much sense of them. In effect, knowledge gives rise to its own cultural sub-groups.
Also, there are “levels” of reality aren’t there? I mean, there is the theoretical (yet largely proven) level of atomic and sub-atomic particles. There is the physical reality we live in. But there is also the social reality of understanding cause and effect within the context of complex human relationship. There is even the abstract reality of money social status and title. Human beings span all these levels of reality all the time (and many more).
So what does “divine revelation” mean? A lot of what I read in the bible is pretty much just social reality couched in terms of “divine” reality. So a leader is “chosen by God.” Well that’s a nice way of explaining a complex social structure without actually bothering to explain anything. See what I mean?
You true believers throw these terms around as if they actually described something, but usually (as an outsider) It sounds like more fairy tale to me. If you can’t explain it to someone who doesn’t accept your assumptions, what do you really know?
When I think of revelation, I think that either a person has (or claims to have) an experience where some divine authority is talking directly to them, or they feel really inspired by what they are saying on an emotional level. Both of these descriptions are covered under “mistakes, hallucinations and lies.” If you had a revelation, how would you know it was real? I’m told right brain temporal lobe epileptics have these kinds of experiences as part of their seizure disorder.
Maybe these are the sorts of people who wrote the bible, no?
November 9, 2009 @ 8:57 pmWell, it’s all arguable, and it’s all relative. Yes, South Africa is not in an ideal situation – far from it. But from early childhood, I remember that the end of apartheid coming amidst a bloodbath was seen as a certainty. In comparison to that, and to other Southern and Sub-Saharan African states, what has occured is relatively good. It’s a functional democracy, with some elements of an advanced economy, although levels of crime and poverty are unacceptably high. At least it isn’t Zimbabwe. At least it isn’t Rwanda.
On that point I really have to disagree. It’s not good news all round, but everyone living happily ever after can’t be the standard for a good outcome.
Former Eastern Bloc countries now part of the EU:
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and (through reunification) East Germany.
Former Eastern Bloc countries now part of NATO:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Albania and (through reunification) East Germany. Ukraine and Georgia have been told that they will eventually become members.
All of those countries have problems, but then so do France, Britain, Italy, USA… As ‘emerging markets’ their economies seem to be outperforming mine and yours right now. That’s a whole lot of Eastern Europe where things are going reasonably well. You are always incredibly well informed about things, but I really don’t think so on this.
November 10, 2009 @ 4:29 amWell, I have two responses to this grenade. First, legal and moral are two different things.
Second, I think we would all agree that if a pregnancy was going badly and it was certain to result in the death of both the mother and the baby, it would be immoral NOT to perform an abortion if this was medically called for.
On the other hand, I think we would all agree that having 6 abortions per year as a preferred form of birth control is immoral and disgusting.
So somewhere between those two extremes is a line that needs to be drawn. Our culture will argue endlessly about where this line should be and ultimately, I think this is a good thing. It means that people still care about moral reasoning. Personally I’m pretty comfortable with where the law is right now, but I can certainly respect that you are not.
So I have no real argument with you on this issue.
Same goes with Gun Control. We all agree that we have the right to bear arms if only in self defense. We also all agree that while we might feel ok about owning nuclear warheads ourselves, we sure don’t want our neighbor to have one.
So somewhere between those two points is a line to be drawn, and there will always be arguments over where.
Also a good thing IMO.
Human beings have power and choices that create moral dilemmas. Appealing to some supernatural ideally moral being is one strategy for resolving these dilemmas. I can see that for many people it’s the best strategy they have. “WWJD?” is actually a pretty good question. If nothing else, it gives the person a chance to stop and think about their actions before they do something stupid. But it’s not the only strategy for determining moral decisions, and it’s frankly, not a very sophisticated strategy. I don’t say this to diss it. I think that simple strategies actually tend to be more effective on a day to day basis.
But I think that ethics is a whole field of study for a reason too. And let’s face it: Many of the really horrible things that have happened over the last century occurred because of bad moral reasoning, and NOT because of a lack of it. The holocaust was a great example of moral reasoning gone awry.
This kind of thing is always a danger with human societies. When Joshua fought the battle of Jericho he committed genocide. He did it using the best moral reasoning he had at the time: “God told me to do it.” Human beings did not evolve with a moral intuition that goes much beyond their tribal unit. Once you start getting into larger social units (city-states, nations, corporations etc.) the moral calculus starts getting much more complicated and less intuitive.
We tend to think of morality in terms of “doing the right thing.” We assume that if the rest of the world just had our idea of morality then there would be no evil in the world. I want to suggest to you that moral reasoning is a skill, and that rather than coming up with the One True Morality, what we humans are constantly doing is working to find cognitive tools (ideas) that help us to negotiate moral dilemmas. Usually these ideas work pretty well. When they don’t we create suffering like crazy. My observation is that absolutist thinking tends to backfire. Not always, but usually.
The idea of God is an absolutist idea: He is an absolute authority who has absolute power and is absolutely moral, good and loving. Aside from being logically self-contradictory, he is also a pretty dangerous moral tool.
In point of fact, “Allah Akbar” Bang! Bang! Bang! Was the last thing some of our service men and women heard last week.
This is why I work to oppose religion. IMO, it’s dangerously wrong-headed.
November 10, 2009 @ 8:54 amI wasn’t under the impression that these countries ever had a “velvet revolution,” rather that they were simply lost at the end of the Cold War.
I thought Russia managed to re-install a pro-Russian dictator in the Ukraine. Georgia, obviously, just got invaded. I heard the same happened in Belarus.
Another data point against your thesis would be the Iranian “twitter revolution.” Most of those people are being rounded up and shot right now, are they not?
Are you from there? If so, why did you leave?
From what I’ve read of the place in “McMafia,” the government is “officially” in charge but it hands out government positions to family members and tribesmen, so incompetency is widespread. It pursues a soft policy of white ethnic cleansing by ignoring the murders of whites. The white population has shrunk significantly. Murderers have a 90% chance of going unpunished. On the ground, Nigerian crime gangs control quite a bit of territory.
The country has basically become a trafficking hub because that’s what pays the bills.
November 10, 2009 @ 9:36 amSlovakia (as half of the former Czechoslovakia) was the original and only ‘velvet revolution’ if you look the term up on wikipedia. East Germany I would certainly count – those scenes of germans taking down the Berlin wall and crossing freely from East to West? Bulgaria, too. Personally, I would count the others as well, but fair enough if you don’t want to. Even discounting them, I still think that your initial point –
is inaccurate. The Iranian ‘twitter revolution’ never succeeded – unsuccesful revolutions, velvet or otherwise, just never turn out well for the revolutionaries.
No, I’m not from South Africa, it just seemed to be on the news every day as I grew up. Ex-colonnial territory, play the same sports as we do, but embargoed from international competition. Constant attempts to pay sportsmen vast sums to compete there, leading to their careers ending. Those things, and the ethnic tension, made it a big deal. My brother got engaged to a South African girl and I refused to go out there, which made it a big deal personally, too. I have been since, and I now have friends who live there, and yes, I’m concerned for their safety. It depends what you compare it to – I compare it to other Southern African countries, by which measure, (although your description is broadly correct) it could be much worse.
November 10, 2009 @ 12:02 pmI’ve never been able to figure out how they are different. Can you please explain this to me? I’ve studied philosophy and jurisprudence in search of the answer. Have you? What do you think?
My hunch is that all laws are based on views of right and wrong, aka “morals.” You know- ought/ought not, just/injust, good/bad. It would seem to me that all laws are simply codified morals. It would seem to me that you cannot hide behind the fallacy of “secular law” when faced with moral questions.
November 10, 2009 @ 2:44 pmI suppose I’m not completely opposed to this, but how much success for the revolutionaries can merely be attributed to a collapsing Russian empire?
When our empire in Asia collapses, will it be because of us or because of them?
Sooner or later, empires simply burn themselves out mostly because the conquerors burn out and simply decide it’s not worth it.
November 10, 2009 @ 4:14 pmVery true.
November 11, 2009 @ 2:21 pmAre you pulling my leg?
Do you mean that you can’t think of any law that has ever been passed that was clearly designed to promote the wellfare of one group over another?
How about slavery? That had all kinds of laws supporting it. The Holocaust? Same thing.
Now I will grant that each of these legal concepts had it’s own moral calculus associated with it, but these were thinly veiled rationalles for the basic idea that “My in-group gets to dominate your in-group.”
November 12, 2009 @ 10:16 amI can’t think of any law that has ever existed in any country that has ever been about anything other than one group of people telling another group of people what they ought and ought not to do, and the ought and ought not is always based on the dominant group’s opinion about right and wrong.
November 12, 2009 @ 2:30 pmThe Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in Britain was passed with total disregard for public opinion. We had elected a government which tried (and largely succeeded) to pass a bill totally against the public interest without causing tooo many ripples. Because we have Simon Cowell and reality TV to distract people’s attention, they got away with it.
November 12, 2009 @ 4:05 pmI’ll bet there have been LOTS of times when the dominant group didn’t think they were doing the moral thing, but because it served their purposes, they passed the law anyway.
“I get what I want” is not a moral value per se under any value system I am aware of. It is often rationalized and couched in moral terms, but that’s a separate issue.
That said, Earl, I take your point, and I realize I am splitting hairs with my last point. Still, actual beliefs and stated beliefs are two different things too.
What do you think makes “secular law” a fallacy?
Just because a philosophical system is not religious doesn’t mean that it’s not a functional moral system (whatever that means), just like religious moral beliefs don’t necessarily lead to a just or even functional society. At the end of the day though, I think that the standard by which morality is measured is not adherence to the word of a divine authority, but rather the type of society which that standard creates.
For example, I wouldn’t want to live in a Muslim nation, or under Sharia law (as I understand it at least). And these societies believe in the same God you do, as far as I can tell.
November 13, 2009 @ 2:40 pmChristians and Muslims do not believe in the same God. Allah has very little to do with Jesus.
November 13, 2009 @ 9:53 pm