I no longer accept that we are only at war with Islamic fascists.
I no longer accept that we are only at war with Islamic fascists or Islamic fundamentalists or whatever the heck we’re calling them this week. I believe that we in the West are at war with Islam, period.
I have heard any number of politicians, up to and including President Bush, claim, contrary to all reason and evidence, that Islam is a religion of peace. If you buy that load of malarkey, I’ve got a Brooklyn mosque I’d like to sell you.
This is the religion that was founded by the violence-prone Mohammed fourteen hundred years ago. It was he who established the practice of converting at the point of a sword; a short while ago, two journalists kidnapped by his followers were converted at the barrel of a gun. In 14 centuries, it seems only the technology has changed.
I have read that the current crop of terrorists and butchers only represent about ten percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. I don’t know how they came by that figure, but that would still add up to 120 million cut-throats and fellow travelers. That figure is far greater than the number of Germans who were even alive when Hitler and his pagan hordes were marching across Europe, and far greater than the number of Russians who were Communist Party members during Stalin’s reign of terror.
I have heard well-meaning people claim that, however we might feel about Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the various tyrants heading up Syria, Iran and the rest of the Middle East, our own American Muslims are a breed apart. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. We’re all aware that long after their co-religionists attacked the U.S.S. Cole, blew up our embassies and attacked a Marine base, and murdered 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, all in the name of Allah, these peace lovers were wiring contributions to our sworn enemies.
Moreover, we know that young American Muslims are not lining up to join our armed services and thus prove that their loyalty to this nation takes precedence over their religion.
In 1943, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was formed. It consisted of young Japanese-American men. In spite of the fact that the Nisei faced widespread prejudice in America, and in spite of the fact that their own families had been imprisoned by the federal government at Manzanar and various other concentration camps, these volunteers became the most decorated combat unit of its size during World War II. It was thanks to their sacrificial efforts that over 200 members of the 36th Texas Division, the so-called Lost Division, were rescued from certain slaughter at the hands of the Germans. It was during this battle in France’s Vosges mountains that Second Lt. Daniel K. Inouye, later to be elected to the U.S. Senate, lost his right arm and earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. Astonishingly, his was only one of 21 such medals won by the relatively small group. The unit became legendary, known as the “Go for Broke” guys who fought for their country and their honor, collecting nearly 10,000 Purple Hearts and a nation’s gratitude along the way.
On the other hand, what do we hear from America’s Muslims? Silence when it comes to military service, bellyaching when it comes to ridiculous claims of racial profiling.
Quite honestly, I suspect that the only way we could get the Koran crowd to go fight in the Middle East is if the United States declared war on Israel!
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
What took you so long? :-)
Comment by k-rad | October 7, 2006
What, no editor's note on this one dissavowing the writings and ideas of one Burt Prelutsky?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 8, 2006
I know I shouldn't respond to Patrick, but he's piqued my curiosity.
Pray tell, Patrick. What is it about Burt's article that you find needs censorship? I understand the multicultural, hyper-diversity minded left are incensed by anyone so much as hinting Islam might not be a "religion of peace", but it is an opinion we're entitled to given the statements and actions of its more prominent, powerful, and authoritative members. Burt's comments are, furthermore, supported by Islam's long history of forced-conversion, massacre, assassination, plunder, and deceit (and recent resurgence of same); as good a pedigree as any you’ll find.
I agree with Burt. Islam is not a nice religion. It was begun by a cruel and narcissistic megalomaniac with delusions of godlike authority; and, although there are many decent Muslims (who by their decency) give Islam a respectability it doesn’t deserve, it remains a nasty and un-peaceful religion.
Islam has two characters, one for those who submit unquestioningly to its dictates and another for those who refuse or apostate from it. Only the former can be said to be peaceful, and only so long as adherents remain submissive and/or committed to Islam’s prime dictate of expansion. All others are considered objects of an unrelenting warfare until forced into submitting under Islam’s iron rule (shari’a). War may be by overt physical attack, sneak attack, assassination, subversion, infiltration, or any other form of coercion or even persuasion. Islam commends deceit and persuasion only when it is relatively weak, and only until that can be corrected. According to Islam’s venerated legalists, everyone belongs to either ‘Dar al Islam’ or Dar al Harb; and can be nothing else. If you are subject to shari’a (Dar al Islam) but are non-Muslim, then you are either dhimmi (submissive non-Muslim) or apostate. If dhimmi, expect punitive taxes (jizya and kharaj), humiliation, and abuse; if an apostate, death, torture and/or imprisonment. If you live where Muslims are a minority and shari’a is not the rule, you belong to Dar al Harb (land of war) and are considered a legitimate object for attack and/or aggressive conversion.
There are good Muslims assuring us terrorists are anomalous and what they do is a perversion of Islam (not the Islam we should all know and love). Ask yourself, though, if two equally credentialed spokesmen claim the opposite for their creed, which of them is to be believed: the one claiming his religion is no different from your own but can’t sufficiently repudiate known doctrinal, textual and historic evidence to the contrary, or the one claiming his religion demands a brutal suppression of infidels, is ready to strike off your head, has 14 centuries of consistent practice and theory behind his claim in accord with all we know, and who gets riotous applause from ordinary Muslims around the globe each time he blows up a building or massacres dozens of fellow Muslims in order to take out a one or two infidels? This would be like meeting two natives in cannibal-country, each telling you a different story. The first says he’s from a tribe that no longer practices cannibalism and begs you to come away with him. The second guy admits to being a cannibal, tells you the first guy’s his cousin, and invites you home for dinner. Both are carrying machetes and wearing little doll-heads on a necklace. Guy number one tells you the doll-heads have been in the family for decades and hangs onto them for purely sentimental reasons. Guy two says they were gotten from recent dinner guests. Note that, throughout this encounter, guy one does nothing whatsoever to offend or contradict guy two, other than put his own spin on things. He also makes no offer to help should guy two try to eat you. I don’t know about you, Patrick, but I wouldn’t believe guy one if my life depended on it. As for guy two, I’d give him a wide berth and keep a good grip on my elephant gun. You may call this discriminatory and defamatory. I call it prudent.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | October 9, 2006
I am a newcomer to this arena. And it is not my normal behavior to respond to things I read.
I consider myself neither a pundit nor a scholar. So please forgive me if I have taken anything out of context. However, reading the article here caused me to consider the issue of contemporary and historical Islam in a few contexts. I also think on the naturalized citizen who is also of Islam. Perhaps one of you, better educated than I, can answer some questions.
IF:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .
AND:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
What is the answer when one of the above comes in conflict with the other? Is it reasonable that a freely exercised and organized religion espouses overthrow of the government by force or violence?
If a potential citizen must swear:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Do not the terms “foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty” include caliphates and leaders of organized terrorist groups?
If the Koran says:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
[109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion
And
[17.16] And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.
Does the first amendment infer proactive protection of religious observance and belief? And if so, what to do with a “religion” which advocates conversion by force? Do we allow freedom of religion to include religious based anarchy and the goal of establishing a theocracy?
If these rights are inviolate:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Has Congress not enacted, and our Supreme Court upheld, limitations on other rights in the form of laws on libel, slander, “hate” speech, campaign “finance” reform, and gun control laws?
As I have stated, I am not a scholar. The answers are beyond this layman. Nevertheless I believe it is not only within the boundaries of the Constitution, but necessary for our survival as a nation and a society, that some redefining of the term “religion” as it is used in the constitution be researched, discussed, and established. I see many dangers here. Politicians with agendas and axes to grind might well create a catastrophic piece of legislation, inadvertently (or intentionally) causing an unconstitutional limitation of the free exercise of religion.
I must confess that I see no possibility for a rational debate on such a proposal. Nevertheless, I see no other way to ensure our continued existence as an American nation and society.
I have a very thick skin. So I do not take opposing viewpoints personally. Corrections and criticism are likewise taken in the spirit of rational debate.
Personally? Whether we have declared war or not, It seems Islam has declared war on us.
We must find a way to fight this war.
John W. Sweeting
Comment by TheWarrant | October 14, 2006
Good point John. But as was earlier stated, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. And also as stated ealier, had the Founding Fathers been faced with I-Slam, it's likely that the religion would have been banned from our shores. I may seem a bit extreme, but perhaps thats the kind of law we need in America today. The question is, who in our government has the spine to propose such a nation-saving law? I hold NO prejudice against poeple who claim to be followers of Islam, just as I hold none for Jews, or Protestants, or Hindus, etc, etc. PROVIDED they practice their particular faith in a way that does NOT interfere with MY practice of MY faith, (Catholicism). Unfortunately, some people just can't seem to "play nice", and need a good spanking to get back into line with the civilized folks.
I'm an not expert, or wordsmith myself, but I know a threat to freedom when I see one…and Islam isn't going away peacefully. I firmly believe that GOD granted the United States all of it's power and progress since 1776. And we'd better get a grip on reality and get back to OUR God. It's a sure thing that THEY are more dedicated to their faith than it appears most Americans are of ours. (A sad commentary on our nation).
I'd much rather live under the threat of a theocracy based on an all forgiving, peacefull God, (Jesus Christ), than follow the writings of a madman's religion born in blood, that is still living in the days of the Crusades. (Which were DEFENSIVE by the way.
Just my opinion.
Comment by Rorysense | October 14, 2006
Good points, too, Rorysense. I agree with your sentiments and especially your last sentence. I do not think anyone in government has the spine to do what is necessary either. My fear is letting our Congress get ahold of an issue like this because I am sure they would make a mess of it. It would require a very clear, concise, simple, and decisive legislation. Those words are usually not applicable to federal legislation though. For myself, I have given this some though and I do not know how I would word something like this, I'll admit.
At the risk of sounding like a "right-wing radical Christian" I believe our nation's birth was blessed of God and that the Constitution is truly a document inspired by God.
The threat should be clear to the most casual observer. As always, what, exactly, do do about it is the question. For myself, I believe we must muster every resource avalailable, openly declare war, and do the dirty work of rooting out and destroying such facisim, as we did once before.
Comment by TheWarrant | October 15, 2006
"Pray tell, Patrick. What is it about Burt’s article that you find needs censorship?"
Lol. Absolutely nothing! I was making a joke. Burt's last article, which was obviously not intented to be taken completely seriously, had a stupid little editor's note attached to it making it clear that the Burt's views aren't shared by this site or its owners and I thought it was just a little bit overly-PC. I'm on your side!
An interesting point about upholding the constitution that John brings up as well. The real question is, which constitutional rights are more politically popular to uphold, because that's all our leaders care about. Not security, not our future. Their next election, and that is all. What they are too self-aborsbed to realize is that by neglecting to protect our country in order to preserve "religous" rights, they are going to lose the ability to have that all-important next election.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 15, 2006
John,
I highly recommend you (and everyone else) read Andrew Bostom's book "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims ". This book details both the factual and historical realities of Islam together with its inherent fixation with 'holy war'. Other excellent books include Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", Bernard Lewis' (an expert on Islam) "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror ", and Ibn Warraq's "Why I am not a Muslim". And, for an entirely different view, try Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith ". Manji, I find particularly compelling as she has not abandoned her faith, but is a strong advocate for an overhaul that would transform Islam into a religion of real tolerance. You can also read Manji at http://www.muslim-refusenik.com.
As for the seemingly suicidal duality of our Constitution, this is a purely modern distortion of the establishment provision. This provision was included in the 1st Amendment as an assurance to the states that ‘their’ religious establishments would not be molested, not as an establishment busting measure. That’s right, it was not a guarantee to every individual he could practice his own pagan or heathen religion, it was a guarantee that Virginians would be able to keep their Episcopalian, Massachusetts their Congregational, Maryland their Catholic and Anglican, &c establishments; who would not then suffer competition from a ‘national’ church. Some states had already eliminated religious establishment in favor of a greater ‘Christian’ pluralism and tolerance. This is not quite the same as our modern tolerance, but it is close. Others, maintained their right to an established church; and, if you didn’t like it, you were free to move elsewhere.
The big complaint then (even within states) was the enforcement of tithes, taxes paid for the support of an established church. Most states had a majority supported church, for which all citizens were compelled to pay tithes regardless of affiliation. Minorities grumbled about paying these tithes, but conceded the majority’s right. With the plan for federation before them, however, each state majority would lose its status and become a minority. Were the federal government then try to impose a national church, the large number of ‘minorities’ would have been fighting for dominance. This was a real show stopper to launching the new republic, with many important states, like Virginia, refusing to join until it was resolved. States that were already tolerant were even more opposed to the possibility powerful states like Virginia would take the lead and force them to pay tithes or vote measures suppressing their sects.
The question of tolerance and religious freedom in the early republic was not one of which religions would be tolerated, it was a question of which Christian sects. Jews were present also, but were strictly a tolerated minority and did not really figure in these calculations (and would not until the late 19th century). To both establishment and anti-establishment (anti-establishmentarianism) states, this was a vital matter for preserving the existing freedom of worship, not expanding it. States like Massachusetts had been founded to provide safe havens for a particular sect and, for them, religious freedom meant protecting their established church against encroachment by other sects or a ‘national’ church (like the Church of England from which they’d escaped). Rhode Island, in turn, had been colonized in protest of Massachusetts particularism, and was the first state to champion (sectarian) freedom of conscience. Maryland was created as a sanctuary for English Catholics, but had been taken over by Anglicans, and had substantial minorities including Puritans, Anglicans, and Amish. For each of these, ‘religious freedom’ had a different meaning and cannot have been encompassed by the simple phrase used in the amendment regarding encroachment.
The federal government, had it already held power, could be expected to solve the problem of discordant sects the same way England had, by establishing a national church and allowing limited dissent. As the government was in process of being created and unlikely to attain power without the consent of the states, it was forced to offer a compromise all could live with. The establishment clause was, therefore, a compromise to ensure neither a religious dominance nor anti-establishmentarian disturbances that would upset the states.
The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote is the origin of the “wall of separation” idea that has infected our modern understanding of the establishment clause. Jefferson was writing to a Connecticut churchman to assure him there was nothing in the establishment clause to disturb their church establishment; not to assure him the clause guaranteed any and all to practice freely within Connecticut contrary to Connecticut’s laws. That would have alarmed the Connecticut churchman, his congregation, and most of the state; would have incited free-conscience advocates to overturn Connecticut’s establishment which would have been the furthest thing from Jefferson’s mind. The establishment church did not prevent the individual states from keeping or creating establishment churches of their own, it only prevents the federal government from doing so. Similarly, it does not prevent the government, its officers, agents, or employees from engaging in religious expressions; nor in preventing expressions of a religious nature on public grounds nor in public view. It has and always had but one purpose, to prevent the creation of a nationally dominant sect of the then recognized American religion - Christianity.
As a Jew, I am glad the idea of tolerance is well entrenched in this, my country. However, I am not blind to the historical reality this is a Christian country; as so many of my fellow Jews are want to pretend it is not. The United States, the Constitution, and libertarianism on which they are founded are uniquely Christian achievements … with a little help from others.
P.S. Don’t apologize about not being a scholar, expert or pundit. None of us are … until we are. An expert is just someone with more relevant knowledge than the next guy, a scholar someone interested enough to do research, and a pundit anyone willing to risk an opinion out where some other pundit will whack it off. You asked some good questions, made good points, and did so with civility. That puts you one up on many who come here just to sling mud.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | October 23, 2006
Patrick,
I think you got a little 'too' subtle with that one. I can't keep track of everyone as to viewpoint, so I mistook your reaction. I love Burt's wit too. I've seen those editorial notes and know why they are there, but, to be honest, I forgot about them.
Please, accept my apology.
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | October 23, 2006