Using My Religion
When is a religion just a religion? When John Kennedy ran for President in 1960, his opponents argued that as a Roman Catholic, he might be torn by a dual loyalty to the United States and the Vatican. Although the Constitution requires that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”, where that religion has an earthly representative it potentially runs afoul of the oath of allegiance, where the citizen promises to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty”. The problem of dual loyalty is a little more widespread than is commonly imagined.
During John F. Kennedy’s campaign for and brief tenure as U.S. President, some opponents questioned whether a Roman Catholic President of the United States had a divided loyalty with respect to the Papacy and Vatican City. … During the English Reformation, many important British and Scottish figures such as Thomas More, Mary Stuart and Edmund Campion were tried and executed for their alleged double loyalty to the Papacy and infidelity to the Crown. … The Chinese Catholics have been forced by the government of the People’s Republic of China to substitute the Roman Catholic Church in China by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.
Stephen Walt, who is a professor of political science at Harvard University, discussed what is perhaps the most famous case of a religious test. Jewry. He argued that American Jews did not have “divided loyalties”. They just had a serious conflict of interest.
One might start by remembering that the phrase “dual loyalty” has a regrettable and sordid history, given its origins as a nasty anti-Semitic canard in old Europe. Accusing anyone — and especially someone who is Jewish — of “dual loyalty” is bound to trigger a heated reaction, and for good reason. …
But what about getting directly involved as a government official, and in issue-areas where important interests are at stake? Instead of invoking phrases like “dual loyalty,” a rhetoric that immediately invokes connotations of betrayal (or even treason), I suggest we frame the issue as one of potential conflicts of interest. Simply put, is it in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S. policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the United States may have important disagreements?
That strongly suggests that there are some jobs for which American Jews need not apply. So what are we to make of Herman Cain’s assertion (and Chris Christie’s rebuttal) that it is unwise to appoint a Muslim to high federal office. Cain makes the argument that Islam has a competing legal code to that of the United States: sharia law. He cites instances to support an assertion that there is an active campaign to supplant US law with sharia law. That it would seem, makes Islam a little bit more than just another religion; but an earthly power with earthly laws, princes and potentates. Christie on the other hand, believes that that the whole business is a nonsense. One senses that his instinct is to involve Muslims in the political process in the belief that they are better inside of it than outside. Both videos are shown below. You decide.
One other item left out of the debate are political ideologies which are operationally religions. These are called political religions, and under this category fall such belief systems as Nazism, Leninism, Kim Il Sungism and Japanese Emperor worship. One might add the more radical varieties of Environmental Ideology to this list as well.
Political religions have the following attributes. They suppress other religious beliefs through strident propaganda; they require absolute loyalty to the belief system and purge opponents. They externalize blame. Anything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault. They have a cult of personality or some other sacred object which they venerate, often unreasoningly.
There is obviously no “religious test” which prevents an environmentalist, communist or theoretically even a nazi from being appointed to public office. But should there be? And to return to the issue. What is a religion? And when can a man being considered for public office be reasonably accused of a likely “allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty”?
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Well, you put your foot into now. No one was supposed to ask that question. Whatever goes wrong from here on out, it’s Wretchard’s doings.
What is a religion?
Christianity alone is not a religion, it is a relationship between man and Christ, who alone puts man in a relationship with his Father, the Creator. This relationship consists of faith (assent to God’s divine revelation), and prayer (which in turn depends absolutely on faith).
The Muslim is the servant of God. The Jew is the student of God. But a Christian is a friend of God.
John 15:15 “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”
Wretchard says: Political religions have the following attributes. They suppress other religious beliefs through strident propaganda; they require absolute loyalty to the belief system and purge opponents. They externalize blame. Anything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault. They have a cult of personality or some other sacred object which they venerate, often unreasoningly.
Sounds a lot like the cult of Teh Won to me.
Re: differences in the view between the two, Cain’s is pragmatic and Christie’s is wishful. Hasn’t wishful thinking already got us in this mess?
Using the 80/20 rule and assuming at least 80% of US Muslims would honestly and fairly differentiate between their citizenship and religious roles, that still leaves up to 20% who are strongly counseled by their faith to lie and cheat in every way possible as a means to overcome persons who do not share their faith.
Christie can ignore that threat to his own detriment, if he chooses, but keeping Muslim’s “involved in the political process” does not have to mean naively turning the keys to the kingdom over to them and then hoping for the best. Cain’s approach is one of tough love. This might be starting to occur, but until US Muslim’s get fully involved in removing the Al-Qaeda stink from their own underwear, politically facilitating their collective “right” to higher office is riskier than anything charged against Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. And potentially deadlier, too.
The issue of dual citizenship is of much more concern than religion.
Dual citizenship means dual loyalty.
No dual citizen should have any US security clearance.
That will not stop traitors like Jonathan Pollard– who deserved the death penalty–still does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, while publicly denying, until 1998, that he was an Israeli spy.
If any US citizen commits treason in time of war then they deserve the death penalty
–if they do not have dual citizenship then they can run but they cannot hide.
A rule forbidding dual citizenship in the US and specifically excluding any and all dual citizens from all security clearance will save a lot of American lives and interests.
I am extremely grateful that Muslims are in America to enrich our society. Muslims have done a stupendous job in their nations of origin setting up inclusive enlightened societies, and we should overflow with gratitude that they are willing to leave the Islamic Nirvana for this benighted land where they may deliver non-stop lectures on the finer points of civil society, constitutional law, tolerance, and religious freedom, etc. Today the Islamic cultural enrichers at the Hamas linked mosque where Gov Christie’s Muslim buddy, Sohail Mohammad is a leading member, are delivering one such lecture on the finer points of constitutional law and the probable illegality and unconstitutionality of having al Awlaki killed. Tell me, who are the strongest advocates and protectors of secular law in America today? THE MUSLIMS!!!!
THANK YOU – THANK YOU – THANK YOU !!! MUSLIMS OF AMERICA!!! Without YOU to guide us, inshallah, I’m not sure we’d ever figure out this whole democracy republic We-The-People thing. It’s all so confusing!
The first amendment “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, (and the ) impeding the free exercise of religion”
Strictly applied if the free exercise of Islam was allowed, Honor Killings and Jihad ( as in murder) would be allowed under our first amendment. They obviously cannot be and are not now allowed. Other rights of our citizens, namely the right to life and liberty would become null and void when faced with a murdering Jihadist. People like Christie want to whitewash the conflict our Constitution has with Islam. This is you typical fashionable insanity demonstrated by the Left and many RINO’s. We already restrict the free exercise of Islam. Why not be explicit in our restrictions?
There also is a flip side to this situation. Because we refuse to be explicit in what parts of the Koran we will accept, those who want to openly practice a “moral” Islam, one free of it’s murdering, thieving Satanic verses, are placed in mortal jeopardy without our protection, because apostasy in punishable by death in the Koran. Until we are clear in
our condemnation of the Satanic Verses, there can be no true ‘moderate” muslims; only ones hiding their true feelings.
Wretchard wrote”Political religions have the following attributes. They suppress other religious beliefs through strident propaganda; they require absolute loyalty to the belief system and purge opponents. They externalize blame. Anything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault. They have a cult of personality or some other sacred object which they venerate, often unreasoningly.” I somewhat disagree with PA Cat. That description not only fits the cult of Teh Won, but Islam as well.
5. Victor If any US citizen commits treason in time of war then they deserve the death penalty
Indeed. But the last time the United States was in a time of war was from December 8, 1941 until September 2, 1945. Everything else has been police actions against aspirin factories and sheet.
4. 49erDweet: …politically facilitating their collective “right” to higher office is riskier than anything charged against Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
No one has a right to higher office until an election has intervened.
Samuel Thurston, an Oregon delegate to Congress in 1850, detailed a scenario in which African Americans would intermarry with, civilize, and educate Native Americans, creating a strong coalition against white power. “Long and bloody wars” would be the result. Oregonians created a constitution to prevent racial issues from occurring at all. Basically if you were caught living in Oregon while black, you were flogged and shown to the borders.
Excluding Muslims is the same fear-based crap, a century and a half later.
To cut to the core, the word “religion” is Latin compound of “res” (thing) and “ligare” (to bind). Religion is, simply, “the things that bind”.
Note that nothing about religion, as originally understood, implies anything about god systems. Quite the opposite, religion is about systems that organize people foremost around a commonly held belief structure.
Large groups of people require an organizing belief structure. One cannot escape this fact. One cannot escape religion, therefore, unless one actually retreats to some private island, mentally, physically, spritually. And one cannot do that easily; self-sufficiency is a bitch mother. Even one’s success in the case of the rare Robinson Crusoe is leveraged upon the experience and common knowledge imparted unto him from the ages before he was forced to strike out alone.
You cannot escape religion. You are not irreligious. Belief in God has nothing to do with it. Man is a religious animal. If you are an atheist, atheism is a part (a small part) of your “religion”. If you are a part of the human community, you are religious. The only question is, as in days of old, which god do you serve? You can serve non-existent gods, that was a fact understood long ago.
But you must serve a god, regardless. Even one you do not believe in. You must hew towards a foundational set of truths that inform your worldview. That truth, or your imagining of that truth, is your god.
“Excluding Muslims is the same fear-based crap, a century and a half later.”
That is absurd. You’re deliberately conflating the fevered imaginings of one man with the explicit tenets of Islam which mandate the subjugation and/or destruction of infidels until Islam smothers the earth. That is the Jihadi kernel of Islam which all Muslims nurture when they perpetuate their so-called religion. Even if Muslims don’t personally maim and murder to spread Islam, they support a system which explicitly calls for that.
A more accurate comparison would be how we handled emperor-worshipping Japanese supremacists and Nazi supremacists when they waged war against America. Shinto Shrines and the German American Bunds were abolished – every single one. Supremacist mosques deserve nothing less. Subversive ideologies don’t get constitutional protections when they explicitly call for the destruction of our secular laws, and their supplanting with Sharia. Get a clue. It’s the B.S. “bombing aspirin factories” mentality which helped facilitate al Qaeda to threaten us in the first place.
t @ 2: The Muslim is the servant of God. The Jew is the student of God. But a Christian is a friend of God.
well t, this one I like!
t @ 9: but not this one:
Excluding Muslims is the same fear-based crap, a century and a half later.
Here’s the thing, we tend to allow a lot of craziness, but not without limit, if it falls under religion. Islam, by the book, is very nearly a criminal conspiracy. That’s a problem. While I know a modest number of nominal Muslims and none of them are planning jihad as far as I know, and there are some high profile Muslim writers I have the greatest respect for – I am not ready to declare that Islam falls in the category that we ought to tolerate. I’m not eager to ban it outright, but it could easily come to that, and I think it merits serious discussion.
c @ 10: To cut to the core, the word “religion” is Latin compound of “res” (thing) and “ligare” (to bind). Religion is, simply, “the things that bind”.
+1
or Dylan:
You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
To the extent religion mandates a calendar of holidays, a special cuisine, celebrations (including regular worship services) and a credo, it need not conflict with any country that lets you practice your religion. To the extent that the country in which you live restricts the holidays, cuisine, celebrations, and personal belief system, it can precipitate a conflict.
However, to the extent that your religion insists on being an all-emcompassing matter that supersedes the secular law when that law does not seek to prevent your holidays, cuisine and celebrations, you get another level of conflict.
To the extent we believe that there is something higher than positive law — in the case of America it is a form of natural law: “Nature and nature’s God,” as Jefferson put it in the Declaration — a positive law that violates a natural law will cause a conflict. But that conflict need not create disloyalty to the country. It can be limited (as in the case of abortion or euthanasia, for example) to protests and efforts to overturn the objectionable positive law.
It is when a religion denies that the secular state has NO legitimate authority that trouble ensues leading to disloyalty. The Pollard case is not a case of religion causing disloyalty. It was not on the basis of theology but rather on the basis that US policy was endangering Israel that the information was transmitted. I do not see Pollard as working for Judaism. He was working for another country he felt was being endangered by US policy.
Sharia is a different matter altogether. To the extent that sharia is seen as trumping the legitimacy of the nation itself — that no nation is legitimate unless it is governed by sharia — there will be an irreconcilable conflict.
Am I primarily an American? Or am I primarily Jewish? For me the question makes no sense. I am an American Jew and a Jewish American. Fortunately for me, America is the most hospitable nation in world history to Jews and to Judaism, as well as to the fullest range of all religions and faiths.
If an office holder can truthfully and sincerely swear allegiance to the Constitution and accept the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and if their religion does not permit falsehood in such matters and takes such oaths with complete seriousness, I’m willing to take the chance on having them elected to office. But if their religion does not take oaths seriously, if their religion advocates lying in the service of their faith, I would not be prepared to endorse having them hold office because I could never trust the authenticity of their oath.
Do your own homework and see which groups are trustworthy and which are not.
islam is not compatible with the American republic *period*. Our form of governance is the product of 4000 years of evolution of culture from the Jews of Abraham leavened by the Greeks and Romans and the early church fathers. This islam thing is a gang/cult that gave the people in charge as many women and boys as they wanted from the people they conquered.
Read this http://www.amazon.com/Roots-American-Order-Russell-Kirk/dp/1882926994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317432544&sr=8-1
islam is historically an occupying force until the conquered civilization is destroyed. Then things disintegrate.
Judges and persons of authority must subscribe to the tenets of Western Civilization for the republic to survive. islam teaches that non-islams are lesser beings and without the rights of islams. Cant have that here.
Herman’s right. Not PC but not PC is often right.
Anwar al-Awlaki–was a dual citizen–American born with dual Yemen citizen citizenship–this is an outrage
We must protect America by ending dual citizenship.
Yemeni,Pakistani, Israeli, Egyptian, Russian– etc
Next week –All dual citizens should be stripped of all security clearance.
Enough is enough
There are two conflicting requirements in a society divided into sub-belief systems. The first is to ensure that none of its constituent sects is allowed capture the state in order to impose itself on the other sects. This is the logic of the anti-establishment clause. It recognized that sects would attempt to take over the state and provided a safeguard against it.
The other and almost contradictory requirement was the necessity to provide a means whereby which an organization could temporarily seek to capture the state through the formation of a political party. Political parties, unlike sects (more on this later) are allowed to temporarily capture the state, subject to the proviso that they relinquish control if they lose the next election.
It was only a matter of time before organizations with the characteristics of sects (for example Communism) attempted to take control of the state under the pretext of being a political party. What distinguishes political religions from “normal parties” has been discussed above and does not have to be repeated. Essentially “political religions” have another, secret and largely fixed agenda which is concealed beneath the outward political trappings.
The problems in the field of church-state relations will always involve these political religions. For they alone are both parties and religions. They alone are conspiracies. They alone are substantial “front organizations” which seek to both capture the state and keep it for themselves in perpetuity.
The real test of a dangerous political religion is whether it is resolved, or predominantly resolved, to implement “one man, one vote, one time”; such that once in power they will to all practical purposes, fight to remain there forever. There should therefore be no religious test as such, but some religions are not religions and some political parties, by virtue of their subversive intent, are not normal political parties.
The only way to raise this question is through the political process itself. I disagree with those who argue that Herman Cain is raising an illegitimate question. In fact only the political process can decide whether Roman Catholicism, certain aspects of the Green Movement, or Islam is really a “bona fide” religion. Therefore Cain is raising the issue in the only arena where it can be properly resolved.
Note that as conditions change, the judgment of what constitutes a political religion change also. The US Army once fought a war against the Mormons, though any reasonable person would probably agree that the present day Latter Day Saints are not the same thing the Army fought any longer. The Mormons are at present an ordinary religion and should be respected as such. Similarly Islam may be one thing today and another tomorrow. It is not an immutable thing. But the judge of that status is the political process, not a bureaucrat.
So is Islam a religion? Should devout Muslims be allowed to hold high federal office? That is a political question which is hard to answer, but the interrogative is not out of order.
And this differs from Sharia how?
Until recently the United States did not allow dual citizenship. United States citizens have notably served under the flags of France in WW-I, the Lafayette Escadrile, the Republic of China in WW-II, the Flying Tigers, and in the IDF. Doing so could potentially jeopardize their US citizenship but that would require action by the State Department which could be appealed. This is a variant on the question of whether Obama voided his “natural born” status, but no one I know of claims he lost his citizenship, by his claiming allegiance to Indonesia after his 18th birthday, when he possibly used their passport to go to Pakistan. Adherents of the administration may be reluctant to pursue the dual loyalty arguments. The constitutionality of dual citizenship has not to my knowledge been adjudicated.
Aryan Nation white supremacist neo-nazis attempted to set themselves up as a church and got laughed out of court. The suspicion lingers that they lost by being pretentious dolts who barely had the manpower to take over the corner pool hall and whose outside contacts were even more pathetic. The intolerant Nation of Islam formed by Elijah Muhammad and now run by Louis Farrakhan only differed in details from Aryan Nation but for political reasons has been tolerated. Islam with a billion followers aboard gets a more respectful hearing independent of consideration of the merits. This logically resembles the nuclear proliferation paradox in which Western interventions like in denuclearized Libya when compared to the toleration of Iran and the Norks give every tyrant an incentive to nuke up. If you are going to engage in threatening political activity in the name of religion do so on the largest scale possible and with the most overt links to outside powers that can really threaten the government you owe loyalty to.
Teresita, sorry, you’re dancing right on the edge of crank territory with that not-at-war remark. What on earth do you think the various AUMF’s have been?
What is a religion?
Faith. The suspension of logic in the face of belief.
Back in his USS Clueless days den Beste wrote an article in which he postulated that his atheism was a religious belief. It set a number of people’s hair on fire. His basic argument was that while the existence of God could not be proved neither could the non-existence of God, he just believed there was no God.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Beliefinatheism.shtml
I fall into the Pascal’s wager category when it comes to applying logic to religion myself.
Speaking of fallen Messiahs, I wonder about the popularity of the movie “Downfall” for the basis of parodies. Is there more too it than just the powerful scene in the bunker when Hitler comes to the realization that it is over, or does it strike a chord with the public at large about the frailties of the current elites?
On Sunday I take communion; I believe in transubstantiation. However I don’t believe Jonah traveled around in the belly of a fish. And if sometimes the father says some things that are a kind of astounding about the oriental mind or something it really doesn’t part my hair. (he really did, this one dodering old codger and it was pretty embarrasing in the back pews, surrounded as it happened by people that certainly looked orientlish to me. even more embarrasing no one even complained just kind of rolled their eyes.)
One can hope for a similar degree of hypocrisy from Muslims, enough for us someday to be able to get along.
On many occasions, comments or judgments on a culture made by an outsider are subject to vicious attack from those within the culture.
It doesn’t guarantee against all error, but in most cases it is exactly the outsider status that confers any objectivity to the external judgment or point of view.
Thanks, as usual, Mr. Fernandez, for your “reflections” on US pretzel logic.
There is a test. It’s called an election.
Voters don’t have to justify their votes. That’s why we have secret ballots. That’s a feature.
There is a test. It’s called an election.
I think that is basically correct. If voters elect Herman Cain, knowing full well what his position is, they are basically endorsing his view, saying that at this time in history, Muslims as a rule do not pass the test; except that is, when they do. As long as Cain does not explicitly use the Islamic religion as a litmus then presumably anyone that is Muslim who a President Cain does appoint can be presumed to have individually passed his test of judgment.By keeping things implicit, an exception can be made to the general “rule”.
Thus a test is imposed, but implictly, through the political process.
“Teresita, sorry, you’re dancing right on the edge of crank territory with that not-at-war remark. What on earth do you think the various AUMF’s have been?”
Actually Teresita’s got a valid legal point. This is something that has mainly been heard from the left over the last few years, but is at it’s heart a very conservative objection to our government’s actions over the last 60 years.
It’s this: The Constitution lays out a very specific procedure for War to be undertaken. The founders did this because they greatly feared that a Ruler would raise an army answerable only to himself, and they saw this as a great threat to Democracy. They knew their history well. This procedure, laid out in the Constitution, stands as the functioning Legal Description of War as far as the United States is involved.
So what is an AUMF? This comes about when both the President and the Congress agree that they want to use the military to carry out policy, but they DON’T want to follow the Constitutional procedures of defining what they’re doing as war. It’s not so much that it’s “un”constitutional as it is “extra”constitutional. It is a scenario that the Framers never envisioned; they would have thought it crazy for both the Legislature and the Executive to agree to ignore the Constitution just so they could do whatever they felt like.
Why not just follow the Constitution with regards to war? It’s no harder than passing an AUMF. Oh, but just look at Obama and the Libyan operation – that wasn’t war, silly, that was a Kinetic Military Action! All of our politicians are allergic to the word “war” and have decided that they’ll catch an electoral disease if the people ever hear them use it.
SO – we’re left with the point: in the terms of our legal system, can an action be called “War”, legally, when the defined Constitutional procedure for declaring such has been ignored? How about when not only that happens, but when both Congress and the President say “no, that’s not war”. (ibid, the Libya operation) Of course physically it looks like war, but Legally – Is this War?
And this is the key – a very liberal, “Living Constitution” view says “Oh, no, whatever we decide the Constitution means now is all that counts, we can re-interpret all those old definitions out of it.”
But the Conservative, strict constructionist/original intent view would say “No, those procedures were well thought out when the Constitution is written. If an action does not meet the Legal Definition of War under the Constitution, then it is NOT War.”
So the Question is, which Constitutional Theory do we follow: The Modern, Liberal, constitution-allows-whatever-we-want-now view, or the Conservative, follow the plain words right there in the Constitution interpretation?
I know which theory I follow, even if it does lead to some uncomfortable conclusions.
and as to this comment: “Until recently the United States did not allow dual citizenship.”
Not true, and that statement grossly misrepresents the historical stance of the United States towards the idea; generally the United States has always been the most welcoming country in the world to the idea of dual citizenship. Many may not like that, but that’s our history. For the first 4 score years or so of our history, there was no formal definition of citizenship, not until the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment is inclusive, not exclusive. It tells you who’s in, not who’s out, and the idea of dual citizenship was left ambiguous. Some laws were passed restricting the practice, but they were constitutionally questionable. Finally in the 50′s and 60′s the Supreme Court threw out those laws completely by finding them unconstitutional violations of the 14th amendment.
Once that constitutional interpretation was made, it is more fair to say that Dual Citizenship has ALWAYS been legal in this country, although for a while some unconstitutional legislation restricted it.
Once again, I have to fall on the strict constructionist side of this argument.
What is religion? My favourite description was made by J.G. Frazer around 1916 and is paraphrased below.
Religion is a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.
Religion has a theoretical element – a belief in powers higher than man and a practical element – attempting to propitiate or please them. Belief comes first because you have to believe in the existence of a divine being before you can try to please him. Unless a belief leads to a practice you only have a theology, not a religion. Mere practice, divested of all religious belief is also not religion.
Two men may behave in exactly the same way, yet one may be religious and the other not. The one acting from the love or fear of God is religious. The other acting from the love or fear of man is moral or immoral depending how his behaviour supports or conflicts with the general good. This second man is not religious. Belief and practice, also called faith and works are equally essential to religion. Without both of them religion cannot exist.
Candidates for elected office may be unsuitable to serve when the practical part of their religion – the practice or works – conflicts with the general good.
And there’s this, from The UK Telegraph: IRAN TO EXECUTE CHRISTIAN MINISTER FOR … “APOSTASY”
“For the first time in 20 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has issued a formal death sentence for a Christian. Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, leader of the Church of Iran denomination in Rasht, was arrested in October 2009 while seeking to register his church. He has been on death row since being found guilty of apostasy, conversion from Islam, in September 2010.
“Pastor Nadarkhani’s appeal came to a conclusion on Wednesday, September 28. Iran’s Supreme Court had refused to overturn his death sentence, referring his case back to local judges in Rasht to decide whether Nadarkhani had been a practising Muslim before converting to Christianity, something which Nadarkhani denied. Judges in Rasht ruled that although Nadarkhani had not been a practising Muslim, his Islamic heritage made him guilty of apostasy.
“Although apostasy does not carry a formal death penalty under Iran’s penal code, judges in Rasht were able to use the supremacy of Islamic jurisprudence in Iran’s constitution [see what they did there?] to sue for the death sentence based on religious fatwas, or Islamic rulings, by leading Ayatollahs.”
Someone give Chris Christie the NEWS. And please, contact anyone you can think of to help save this good man’s life.
Amnesty International? Crickets. They have 50 times as much coverage of the guilty cop-killer Troy Davis as they do of this innocent pastor, being killed by crazed religious fanatics.
27a. For example, I would bar from elected office in Canada all Moslems who are members of the Wahabi sect but would welcome to elective office all Moslems who are members of the Ismaili sect. My criterion is that Wahabi practice conflicts with the common good in Canada whereas Ismaili practice contributes to the common good in Canada.
I love Herman Cain. He’s the only one who has the stones to tell it like it is: “they have the right to practice their religion: they do NOT have the right to force it onto the rest of us” via sharia law.
Luuurve ya.
I think the inference of what Cain was saying was that it is not impossible for someone of a M.E. background to qualify as a candidate for an office in the government, but that it was highly improbable, highly unlikely. Add to it the fact that any private or the highly risky renouncement of izlom carries the death penalty, that only adds to the unlikelihood of someone successfully separating themselves from izlomic loyalties.
Whether a muslim has declared himself an atheist (and for the reasons Den Beste cited) , or a new believer in some other religion, he has all but signed his own death warrant.
Cain could have said that the issue of government service is to be based on merit, and that anyone who has the qualifications based on merit is eligible for consideration, but then to proceed (as the elected president) to nominate no muslims- he would likely get hammered by the media pressuring him and accusing him of rejecting or excluding “qualified” muslims of some scholarly merit on the basis of their izlom -ness. (Since Political Corrrectness is the knee-jerk, bread-and-butter of todays media)
That, whether he did so explicitly or not, would be his purview as president of the USA, and frankly none of my business since he would have been elected and be vested with that authority. No president should be judged on any abstract notions of perfection, especially those of “political correctness” and/or “diversity”, since those are unacceptable means/tactics to attack conservatives, iow, to be punished unfairly and unlawfully for not living up to a standard set by leftists, that leftist expect from conservatives, but cannot begin to live up to or even be expected to fulfill by their constituency, nor it’s leaders. Those abstractions originate from the
Frankfurt School, whether very many even remember that today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded
Cain talked not only of what he would not do, but of what should not be done by elected officials vis a vis nominating judges to the bench, judges who would be charged with applying secular law when they have a first loyalty to sharia law that, by definition, supersedes, or exists to destroy any non-sharic law.
Cain has his priorities straight, Christie does not. Christie has already nominated muslims to the bench and this conflict is unacceptable on Christies part.
Clarification: it’s none of my business who a president nominates as long as that nominee has no dual, or foreign loyalties. And unfortunately, we have many of those already. it’s the opposition partys responsibility to vet the nominees, and one wonders what the heck was going on when eric holder was confirmed.
Wretchard (#25) Problem today is getting your view out, the proven slant and outright lying be the MSM makes it nearly impossible for the truth to be broadcast to the same people who heard the twisted sound bite or outright lie broadcasted by the prevailing media, couple that to the fact that the overwhelming voters who make their chose based on hair style, skin color (last election and will play a part in this one) “Feelings” the qualified candidate has little chance of making it in our system just as the last six decades have proven! (yes TV has caused a major shift in how Americans vote) I am sure there are other religions that are so regional that most don’t know they exist are as bad as Islam, Islam does require a Muslim to lie to gain an advantage over any “non-Muslim” so to enslave or murder a non-Muslim, Islam proclaims anything not belonging to a Muslim is his right given by his God to take and the includes raping children as young as 9, Muslim are required to Conquer the non-Muslim, Christianity (Jesus) does not require any such things, a non-Muslim should never trust a Muslim let alone allow them power or leadership over them! The fact is religions that require such acts of its followers should be actively engaged and abolished by all weather thru conversion or force just as any life destroying cancer must be killed so too should be any form of a religion such as Islam!
Cain appeared on Jay Leno last night, and for me made an excellent presentation. Given the format, Cain achieved a 99.44% rate of what any guest could possibly achieve. I am beginning to consider seriously what kind of a president he might make. But, I wonder if he doesn’t share this problem with Romney: he might make a much better executive than he would candidate. At least Romney has experience as a politician. And a president’s job, maybe more today than 100 years ago or in the constitution – or maybe not – comprises being a politician as well as an executive. Oh, being an executive even in a modest corporation of more than a few hundred people is as much about being a politician as any kind of technician, but electoral politics is as different from corporate politics as baseball is different from basketball.
He did walk back his Muslim comment to say he meant jihadist, not any of those peaceful Muslims who well serve the USA.
While this is probably a good thing for him, it is also mildly disappointing.
There has been in recent times a nascent religion based on ethnicity that has evolved here in the south west. It is the worship of the Aztec people and a fanatasy nation that includes the US Southwest called Atzlan. Its proponents believe that the Aztec people were a special race who were moral and ethical supreme beings that cast evil into the bowels of hell through judicial beheadings. They believe that the Southwest United States belonged to them and continues to be their birthright. That “their people” will rise again and to take back what was taken from them, first by the conquistadors then later by US expansionism. I was taking a Photoshop class and a there were four or five art projects out of a class of thirty that promoted the Aztec religion, a couple of whom started their presentation with “I wanted to show everyone here the greatness of my people the Aztecs. I couldn’t but help think that they truly had elevated the art of beheading and raiding neighboring tribes to the point they had to travel a thousand miles just to find some corpses to defile. But I was also struck by the idea if I were to say; “this could take a while, because I am going to school you in the great accomplishments of my people”the Scandinavians, what kind of reaction I might have gotten. Somehow I think not – ¡Viva La Raza!
These folks are in our government and they coach foreign nationals on how to apply for and get benefits. They are frequently the gate keepers as well. I know, a very close friend of mine was a Brown Beret in the 60’s and works for a jobs program that sells itself by getting Mexican gang members off the streets and into jobs like any other government sponsored extortion racket. He has a map of Atzlan in his office. His wife on the other hand, works for the government is an extreme radical. But it’s OK, they are a protected class of pseudo citizens with only one loyalty and that is to their race and the reconquista of Aztlan. No divided loyalties there.
I still say the solution is genetic warfare. Let the biowar people develop a spray the damages the Y chromosome. Then spray Muslims with it. No more little boy Muslims, just little girl Muslims. In two generations The females will take over Islam, just by the process of watching the old men die.
No more spoldey-dopes. No more pizza huts blown up, no more reporters having their heads hacked off. Nobody dies, so it isn’t illegal. It violates no treaty.
Once the Muslims calm down and when the women are firmly entrenched in power, we send in the Marines. Two more generations and they will have bred back up to pre-spraying levels.
The problem will be resolved in the most bloodless way possible. Marine recruitment will go thru the roof. If I could just copyright the process, it would be perfect.
Morton at 11 has it right about Islam, I think. Thanks, MD!
Teresita at 2 sounds VERY Protestant, in the modern Southern Baptist sense. I have a Baptist friend who insists Christianity isn’t a religion, but a ‘personal relationship’ with God. ‘Religion’, he says is something else entirely.
FWIW, I would say, from the Catholic/Orthodox position, that Christianity is that religion by which one participates in the life of Christ, we ‘put on Christ’ as St. Paul said, reborn in Christ through baptism, and transformed through the Eucharist, so that we can call God ‘Abba’ (meaning more than ‘Daddy’ as I’ve seen it sometimes put–but rather, ‘MY Father, not YOUR Father’, i.e., ‘Abba’ being a specific word referring to YOUR father in general (hard to explain it in English, but Hebrew had a general word for father and a word for your particular father that only you could use–hence the Jewish leaders understood Christ claiming natural Sonship of God–something they naturally deemed blasphemous). This is the ‘nuclear pile’ (as Scott Hahn put it), of the Gospel. Far more than a ‘personal relationship’ but a rather change of being.
So, clearly, even within one religion, there are many understandings of exactly what it is.
Unsk at 7 is right on, as well, I think. As is Batman.
And Cowboy at 10, once again, right on the money. Re: this post of his, I would bring up the word ‘cult’, the connection of which to ‘culture’ reinforces Cowboy’s point.
All these great comments, and many others here, are why I value this blog so highly.
An Préachan
35. Annoy Mouse—
Unless I’m wrong, your classmates confused beheading with cutting out a beating heart with an obsidian knife, then throwing the twitching corpse down the pyramid steps. And that was done by a guy who never cut his hair or fingernails.
As far as Aztecs and the Southwest, they lived in the fertile central valley of Mexico and would’ve had no interest in the desert to the north (except maybe when they passed through as fast as possible eons before, migrating south). Nor did the Spaniards, searching vainly for golden cities, nor the Mexicans post-revolution.
In fact, the desert north of Mexico became the sort of frontier society where those seeking escape from the rigid Creole society could find some freedom and maybe a little rancho of their own—these people were very similar to those who settled the American West.
wws (26)
Wow, our mileage certainly differs. Do I need to quote the relevant part of Art 1 Sec 8? “To declare War”. That’s pretty general and abstract in my book; I don’t see a lot of “very specific procedure” in that brief phrase.
Religion is Politics and Politics is Religion. I think that separating them into distinct realms misses what is at the essence. That fact that both derivations may or may not gain in direction as to reality has more to do with how a person views existence and then what actions that person might take, than with how the views are arrived at.
In any case, thought without action is of little social consequence. People banding together require conscious action by those people. In the end it is their choices which determine outcomes, not simply the beliefs that are held.
The differences between what an individual can think and what an individual can actionably do is incalculable. Religion/Politics is the same reaction to those differences.
37. An Préachán Teresita at 2 sounds VERY Protestant, in the modern Southern Baptist sense. I have a Baptist friend who insists Christianity isn’t a religion, but a ‘personal relationship’ with God. ‘Religion’, he says is something else entirely.
From Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical, “Spe Salvi”:
“Life in its true sense is not something we have exclusively in or from ourselves, it is a relationship. And life in its totality is a relationship with him who is the source of life. If we are in relation with him who does not die, who is life itself and love itself, then we are in life. Then we ‘live… Our relationship with God is established through communion with Jesus — we cannot achieve it alone or from our own resources alone.”
And by the way, after the reign of this Pope, no one will ever be able to (validly) lay the charge at the feet of Roman Catholics that we despise the Sacred Scriptures, or that Roman Catholics are not a Bible-believing faith community.
All above. BC yet again proves that Islam needs a new narrative, one in which the more reasonable members can still claim muslimness (what a word, that lol) without being fully apostate.
I offer that Islam was hijacked on the road to Medina by evil Priests of the Moon Goddess Allah. Its my story…a good one at that…and am sticking to it.
ta
Republicans such as Ron Paul suggest President Obama should have sent in the police to arrest Anwar al-Awlaki instead of sending in drones to “assassinate” him, because the war on terror is, you know, more a matter for law enforcement now that they are out of the White House.
Ron Paul is technically not a Republican. He quit the party and declared himself a “libertarian”. He caucuses with the Republicans in the house so he was tolerated and supported for years for his vote. This was and is a mistake in the minds of many Republicans. He and his under 21 year old pets, pot heads, and other twits have been scamming the straw polls. He’ll buss in supporters for straw poll votes from out of state in some instances. He does well in straw polls but he never seems to get over low single digits in actual primaries. He serves the interest of the MSM more so than he does the Republican party anymore. He claims to be anti-Zionist as part of an isolationist foreign policy but he and his supporters have made too many hate the Jews comments. Ron Paul is an example of why some politicians aren’t worth supporting even if they vote for your policies most of the time. At too many critical junctures he has slipped the knife into conservative Republicans.
Harsh words to follow.
I think it is unwise to appoint a Muslim to a high office at this point because about the only Muslims seeking such office are likely to be doing it to promote their religion.
Unlike, for example, Mazod the Redneck, such people will not denounce the extremists and declare them to be another religion that they do not consider to be Islam. Any Muslim who sought a high office and still wanted to accept American values would have to do so – and therefore push for an all out war against Islam as it largely exists today in the world. That would in turn fix any problems we have here at home. We still have Nazis here in the USA and in the rest of the West but because we blew the crap out of them in WWII no one considers them a real threat. Any Muslim seeking to “save” his religion would have to advocate the same treatment for the Islamic Fascists today.
The issue of dual citizenship is not one the US can solve, as there are two ends to the dual citizenship equation. For example, Israel allows all Jews to come to Israel and take up Israeli citizenship. As an American you may renounce that citizenship, but that has no practical effect. Israel can simply say, “OK. No matter, you are still a citizen; say what you will.”
There is a number of countries that simply don’t allow you to renounce your citizenship. Become a naturalized US Citizen, renouncing your citizenship of Slobovia in the process, and Slobovia still considers you a citizen.
Do we really want to exclude people in these circumstances? I’m not sure the scale of the dual loyalty problem is significant in those cases.
Re: declaration or not. Given the vote would have been near unanimous post 9/11 (save for Mr. Paul, and maybe a few others), why didn’t Congress vote a DoW for today’s Pearl Harbor? Because the declaration changes the structure of government and creates a major dislocation in the (100s! of) oversight committees’ ability to both do their job and more importantly, direct what they think of as their dollars to spend. ie. signing a DoW changes who works for whom – the Director of the CIA now works for the SecDef, and more. So Congress could write a DoW with a long list of (embarrassing to document and admit) exceptions that did not disturb their fiefdoms – or just write an AUM that doesn’t leave them at risk. Granted, if we stopped the central government from doing all these non-essential tasks (that other, closer to the people, units of government could do, or just left these issues to the citizen and their (voluntary) associations – aka civil society) this wouldn’t be an issue and a DoW (and the central government) could return to its original purpose.
More interesting is how long the tail is on the executive authority to do whatever it is they deem required to be done in a time of whatever they define as a crisis. Congress can always (arbitrarily) remove an executive if they are still alive and can muster enough outrage and votes. Alternatively and almost as effective is removing the funding. Sadly Members no longer want to be put in a position of responsibility for an outcome even as they demand control.
Everything less is just the expected and messy political process – and as government (more accurately the plurality that elects the government) choose to be less constrained by the contract (constitution) with its owners (those same voters) the more the process resembles a parliament v. what the Founders’ designed. But save for their tendency to trample minorities parliaments also are a workable form of representative democracy. And we shouldn’t fool ourselves waiting for constitutionalism to return once the majority have either agreed or stood idly by as the contract was discarded – we have to adapt and turn the ship using what exists – not wait for what we wish it were.
(Time to lift a pint to L3 and team’s efforts. Contribute at http://alliance4selfgovernance.org/)
Wretchard has the makings of a good book on political theory here. I’ve never seen the problem of church-state and “political-religions” expressed so clearly before. Very well thought out. I’d say that Wretchard’s comment (#16) is the single most interesting thing he has written in the last year (and I mean that as praise).
An extension of his ideas comes to mind: the use of transcendent ideals to justify government policy (as opposed to science or utilitarian ideals) has a very long history, starting with the first ruler (say in Egypt) who proclaimed “I was chosen by Horus to rule this land!”. In other words, my claim to authority goes beyond the simple brute “I’m the alpha male, that is why I lead this pack(tribe/clan)”. The appeal of this claim is obvious. The downsides are equally obvious (the Pharaoh really wasn’t chosen by Horus, he really doesn’t have any divine insight into the solutions to the problems of the land, the country would have been better off with someone else in command).
But when we move into the modern era of government, the State is no longer making appeals to transcendent values to justify what it is doing. Its no longer “God demands this bridge be built here!” its “utility theory strongly indicates a new bridge should go here”. But there is a problem: appeals to utility are “dull”, fit subjects only for bureaucrats. It is very hard to form groups of otherwise busy people and get them to CARE when the argument is entirely “secular”. Successful political parties all(?) have some core elements which are not rational, that are derived from value systems that are transcendent.
For many reasons, the Christian church is quite amenable to working with but not insisting on dominance over political systems in which it is found. This is most likely based on its early history of oppression (the Christians only gained political power 300 years after the start of the religion), along with core elements of core doctrine. By contrast, Sunni Islam is not interested in peaceful co-existence with a non-Sunni-dominated state, it essentially demands that its followers seek to take control of the state and impose Sharia law. By contrast, Shia, with its 1,000 year history of oppression, is much more willing to stay out of politics. The differences between the Iraqi Shia leaders – such as Sistani who, after a brief flirtation with politics, withdrew into the traditional isolation – and Khomeini is profound. Khomeini is the truely radical figure in Shia religious tradition.
Other “political religions” such as Nazism, Communism also have no interest in peaceful co-existence. Most likely because they reject any spiritual alternative values. Christians in a non-Christian society can be content with leading a proper life and being rewarded after death. Nazis and Communists have nothing to fall back upon. If they fail to take over the state, their lives have no meaning.
So, political parties in the U.S., whose members have alternative sources of meaning, are not (as a rule) concerned with total victory of their party and permanent political control. I submit that the reason why politics in the U.S. has become so bitter for the Democrats is that they have largely ceased to be a party with a religious (Christian) foundation. By contrast, the Republicans still have a solid base of supporters who believe in transcendent values. For the secular Democrats, if they lose, they have nothing left. For the Republicans, a loss is regrettable, but there are other values of equal or greater import. I submit that secular Democrats have essentially come to worship the state. Personally I don’t think this is healthy and I suspect this is why the “true believers” in the Democratic party view compromise with their political opponents as blasphemy. This also explains (I think) why they are so contemptuous of politicians who express an open devotion to Christianity.
38. Gordon
And let’s add a few more well documented lovely habits of the Aztec priestly caste:
Taking a male and female 2 year old, and while they played in a warm bath, covered their faces with latex, so they are entombed and cannot breath, and suffocate then to death. That way, they’d have good crops.
Taking the fertility sacrifice, usually a girl of barely child-bearing age, skinning her alive, then sewing the skin onto her husband, so that when it dried, it shrunk and suffocated him, too, slowly.
The Spanish, no strangers to cruelty (Inquisition, anyone?) were shocked. It is one of the reasons they had no problem exterminating the Aztecs. It was the barbarity and cannibalism that really started it, along with the outright betrayal. In fact, only after engaging in the systematic slaughter and destruction, did they find the real gold and silver. Then, they got in trouble with the King because they killed all the guys who knew where it was to be dug.
From these fine cultures, I give you…LaRaza!
Teresita at 41:
Many thanks for the Benedict quote. I love his first volume bio of Jesus, but haven’t read his follow-up yet.
Note how Catholics, non-Catholics, and whoever else in the world, can appeal to the Church’s teaching authority, the Magisterium, as the final word in what the Church teaches. Islam has no centralized teaching authority to appeal to, something like some Protestant churches. For example, that Baptist friend I quoted earlier once told me, when I quoted something Billy Graham had said, “Billy doesn’t speak for me.”
Islam goes far beyond any religion in this regard. It’s a true chaos, really. True anarchy. Someone once told old ibn Saud back in the 1920s that some Caliph in Baghdad had taught such-and-so, the old Dune fremen warrior laughed and said so what? He only recognized the first four Righteous Caliphs himself. He could care less about the rest.
So when we’re trying to decide if Islam itself is dangerous, or if Islam itself is more political than ‘religious’, we’re outta luck–because it can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean–if you have enough swords to enforce your will.
Therefore, CAN we ever remotely hope to deal with it in a rational way? I suppose each and every Muslim could be grilled on what he or she believes, but then, there is a Muslim teaching (Taqiyya) that it is okay to lie to non-Muslims in order to promote Allah’s final triumph, etc. Now, many Muslims might consider Taqiyya to be rather tacky, but so what? Every Muslim essentially tacks up his 95 theses on the Mosque door.
An Préachan
I’m a second generation native born Californian and grew up with Mexican-Americans. It is true that Mexico went through some terrible history. The Aztecs were monsters who terrorized their neighbors and the Spanish Conquistadors were only slightly better. Shortly before the Mexican conquest, the Spanish themselves were a traumatized people who had just gone through the centuries long process of driving Moslem invaders from their soil and cleansing themselves from Islam. What the people of Mexico went through was very ugly. Now having said all of this, I actually like Mexicans. I find them to be a very friendly and pleasant people. I love Mexican food and (in brief amounts) enjoy Mexican music. I would have no objection to having a Mexican-American as a neighbor. Truth to tell, given their horrible history I find it surprising that Mexicans are such nice people.
O/T: It’s written by Mark Steyn and easily the best anti-Obama rant that I’ve ever read (I’m in total agreement):
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=586601&p=1
It’s quality verbal abuse. Unfortunately the walk away conclusion is that we’ve committed national suicide….
51. Eggplant—
I’m with you—I love ‘em (mostly). Grew up in a town with lots of Mex-Ams, started learning Spanish in grade school, and volunteer in a place that serves mostly working Mexican immigrants. Their manners are something that puts many Americans to shame and the women, who often dress boldly, have a dignity and modesty that is long absent here.
They are, in general, a hard-working and patient people who are ill-served by their so-called government. We benefit from their ambition and determination, especially in Texas, where we’d be in a fix if they all went home.
wretchard@16: RE: “bona fide” religions and So is Islam a religion? Should devout Muslims be allowed to hold high federal office?
Another way of asking the question: Should only Judeo-Christians be allowed to hold public office? The core of the Republican Party seems unanimously decided.
Eggplant #51:
That may be because the Mexicans you know are here because of the same reason everyone else is here. They got disgusted with the way things were going in the old home country and left. We are a nation less of immigrants than of people who got fed up with the idiots at home and and went looking for something better.
This is generally true in North America, even when some of the old home country is still carried along. A friend of mine from Quebec says that about the most common phrase in French there is “We don’t give a damn how you did it in France!”
Our problem is that now people refuse to recognize that fact, because Civil Rights has come to mean Group A Rights, which equals “Group A Rights Versus Group B Versus Group C … etc. Rights.” So they feel they have to defend the wonderful culture that they got so disgusted with that they up and left.
None of my family, who came mainly from Germany with contributions from England and Ireland, gives a rat’s rump about what the people think in the old home country. Like most Americans, we have shown both the willingness and ability to go blow up the old place if required.
“…Now having said all of this, I actually like Mexicans. I find them to be a very friendly and pleasant people.”
I am a Latinophile and have traveled more extensively in Mexico than I have in the United States. Dated a Mexican woman (a couple over my life) that did not speak a lick of English. When I go to Mexico, I, though unconvincingly, speak Spanish, immerse myself in the culture and enjoy it very much. The Mexican people are a wonderful lot of people with a very authentic and rich culture. But, when I am in Mexico, I am not trespassing their borders, demanding that they accommodate my language, do not consider them racist when they decide that they do not want to issue me a work permit, do not micturate on their political system, do not lecture on them social justice, do not constantly sell them on the value of my culture, do not have a bunch of cousins in the Mexican government to agitate for my rights, do not blame them for my problems, do not march on their institutions, do not steal their jobs, do not opine on their regional law enforcement and on and on.
My good friend, invited me into his home and his wife cooked for me. His second wife. I hold him free and clear of my opinions because he shared with me what he would only share with a friend. I will not betray his confidence and we remain friends. The Mexican people are truly gracious people like I have learned to trust under similar circumstances Philippino’s who are similar in many ways that I can tell.
90% or more Mexicans are the greatest people ever. The other 10% are hard core racist communists that have share power with the elite Left in California. When Jerry Brown starts saying I am going to do everything I can for my people beware. But you can be sure if you are not Mexican, you are not one of anybody peoples but you are on your own and a government of the people will by force of their racial preference ill suit you. If you do not believe in equality for everyone, ie: we all have to play by the same rules, then you are just a temporarily more principled racist by the day’s standard.
White people don’t have an authentic culture. Just ask a liberal. Cowboys? Stole it from the vaqueros. Jazz? Stole it from the blacks. Rock and Roll? Stole that too. It goes on and on. Nobody will afford you the idea that your people were anything but a bunch of hillbilly’s and dirt farming oafs let alone made a contribution to the world. Science? Galileo was Italian, all the rest of the stuff were just tools of murder and mayhem that were probably stolen from someone else anyhow. This is what they teach in schools nowadays.
The Mexican people are hard working. That is how they were able to disenfranchise American construction workers, not that they were harder working though when you live on the couch at your aunts house you ware probably more motivated than some who has done well all of their life. They now earn more than the people they displaced ever did. They came to a country and subverted their laws and now they have money and mortgages and by virtue of numbers have more political influence. Try that in Mexico. Try stealing a job. Try overstaying your visa. Try speaking up politically. Go ahead, try it. They will deport your @$$ so fast your head will spin. But you and the governor wuv dem so much. That means they are better than your neighbor and get to steal money from them if only their jobs, income and ability to feed themselves and their family . So when the sh!t hits the fan, everything that is yours… belongs to whoever has the force to claim it. I hope that is the world you want because that is the world that you are making. You’ll never stockpile enough ammunition when you turn against your neighbor.
To RWE 55
We used to say ‘Maudits Francais’ but they usualy did bring with them a veener of culture and know how.
But not any more since we got invaded by third world who are looking -like you say- for something better like free medicare, education and other benefits !!
SF
Ari Tai (47),
Nothing in the constitution requires this, so if it is actually the case, then Congress could change it (assuming a willing-to-sign-the-bill president.)
Not to be a scold, but the surprising commentary on religion took an abrupt turn into “I love the [blank] people. Some of them are even my friends.” My nature does not nurture the idea of ethnic/racial personalities. Some of the Mexicans I have known were bad @ass g@sbags. And that was just the girls! John Podesta gives me a headache. (He seems to have temperature adjusted to a slow simmer since his Clinton days but the man is still a walking EMP.)
Sharia has an out for Muslims – they are free to obey the laws of the country they reside – even though they contradict sharia. Probably not a big deal to American born Muslims – they’ve never lived anywhere else. But I wonder about those Muslims who’ve emigrated – can they really be loyal to the US? Remember folks, Islam isn’t a “belief” – it’s a political system.
am @ 56: White people don’t have an authentic culture.
Dude, the Internet is as American as apple pie.
Hey, apple pie.
Protestant work ethic, manifest destiny, Hollywood, … a lot of classic American stuff is as “white” as anything, even though it never necessarily excluded anyone, even welcomed converts from all over, the originators were palefaces.
On the Mexican deal, I have to say that California and Texas history is certainly entwined with Mexico, from before statehood right up through today, but that turning California *into* Azatlan is probably in nobody’s best interest, and it has been a MAJOR historical mistake for us to be quite this loose about the border and illegals. For all I rant about 10m jobs in China, we probably have another 10m illegal Hispanics (most Mexican) in the US. A more rational regime would probably cut that in half, make them registered visitors, and dump the criminal element out a lot faster.
The problem I have with the illegal Mexicans here is that they comprise an underclass, no matter how hard working most are, they tend to be a little too respectful of my Caucasian geeky white self and it makes me uncomfortable. I tend to want to pretend to egalitarianism as far as possible, and they don’t seem to even want to play.
But hey, I’m probably just old-fashioned in that, these days there seems a lot of tribalism and class distinction even among the natives.
A religion is a belief structure which at the base relies on an act of faith, believing some unprovable thing to be fact. This unprovable thing is the base of the religion. The sole determining criteria for a religion is the act of faith, believing that one thing.
CROG @48
“By contrast, the Republicans still have a solid base of supporters who believe in transcendent values. For the secular Democrats, if they lose, they have nothing left. For the Republicans, a loss is regrettable, but there are other values of equal or greater import. I submit that secular Democrats have essentially come to worship the state. Personally I don’t think this is healthy and I suspect this is why the “true believers” in the Democratic party view compromise with their political opponents as blasphemy. This also explains (I think) why they are so contemptuous of politicians who express an open devotion to Christianity:”
I think some secular/atheiest people try to compensate for their lack of a traditional moral code by attributing moral values to whatever troubles them, no matter how harmless or silly. My favorite example is the outrage shown by such people toward the advent of tail fins on cars in the fifties. Yes tail fins were silly — “consumerism” gone wild, but immoral? Some seemed to think so.
61. Josh—
Suggestion: just be yourself and let them do likewise. Otherwise you risk looking like one of these hip white guys who talks jive, does fist bumps, etc.
They relate to you in the way their culture has taught them. I suspect it’s a mark of respect and courtesy. Remember, they’re not automatically into first names, etc the way we are. Key off them and they’ll be more comfortable around you. It may even seem condescending and cavalier so go easy.
They don’t seem to want to play? You might examine that statement.
g @ 64: I was just offering some observations and analysis, it’s not really a problem. hey just being over the age of, er, 39, young folk start calling me “sir” and well, that’s another rant.
What I am seeing from the (later) comments is the assertion of a religious difference between the two political parties. Which is interesting, if not significant.
imho the greatest gift that the USA could give to Mexico is the return of their middle class –with their money.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what the big deal is.
Send 12 million Mexicans back to Mexico — who know something about what a first class country looks like — who have gained the means and know how to make it so–and there will be revolution in Mexico which will do that country some good.
As it is we mostly send Mexico trained and hardened criminals who steadlily make that country more toxic. That is current strategy makes Mexico ever more unstable–but by degrees.
Heard on Fox news that a couple nights ago that there are something like 18,000 members of Mexican gangs in Texas alone. The big cartels have taken over whole american counties along the border to ensure their drug routes.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2011/09/28/war-border-more-texas-problem
I think the US should halt all emigration of moslems into the USA. They promise nothing but trouble.
The Europeans are eventually going to kick out their moslems. its important that those people return to their countries of origin.
Forest vs Trees vis a vis the guitar imbroglio.
VAN SUSTEREN: It’s my impression that’s United States isn’t taking this seriously, maybe Texas is, maybe Arizona, but the United States is not taking as a country what’s going on in Mexico with the level of intensity I think it should. I know Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as Colombia 20 years ago and got rebuked by the president. Am I exaggerating this?
SCALES: I don’t think you are at all. I think part of the problem is we haven’t done a good job of telling the rest of America how Arizona and Texas affects them directly. Remember now, there are 18,000 cartel members operating in Texas, but their –
VAN SUSTEREN: There are 18,000 cartel members operating in Texas?
SCALES: A full army division of gang members, the foot soldiers for cartel –
VAN SUSTEREN: In Texas?
SCALES: In Texas, and thousands more in American cities, all in this scheme to distribute drugs throughout the United States. This is not just a Texas problem. This is a national problem. And we need to make the rest of the nation aware of it.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2011/09/28/war-border-more-texas-problem#ixzz1ZaRNuHbX
Considering that there is a full division or 18000 drug cartel members in Texas, you have to wonder why governor perry is open to sending US troops to Mexico to crack down on the cartel there.
…………….
Perry open to sending US troops to Mexico
By STEVE PEOPLES – Associated Press | AP – 3 hrs ago
http://news.yahoo.com/perry-open-sending-us-troops-mexico-190629636.html
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said Saturday that he is open to sending American troops to Mexico to help battle drug cartels.
Perry, the Texas governor, likened the situation to Colombia, where the government accepted American military support in battling drug trafficking. Mexico’s government, however, has been opposed to foreign forces in its territory.
Perry saids the current violence may require similar military action.
“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off of our borders,” he said.
Perry often has called for more National Guard troops to help protect the Mexican border and stem the flow of illegal immigration. But Saturday’s comments go further. They indicate he’s open to deepening America’s military involvement across the border.
61. Josh—
Got it; thanks. I’m with you except now middle-aged adults call me ”sir”.
Oh, well—consider the alternative.
Um, excuse me, but…
…where that religion has an earthly representative it potentially runs afoul of the oath of allegiance, where the citizen promises to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty”.
Kennedy never took the oath of allegiance, nor has any other President. Ever. The oath is required of naturalized citizens, but the President can only be a natural-born citizen. Naturalized citizens can’t become President.
Also, Sir Thomas More was tried and (falsely) convicted of treason against the English throne, not because he was a Catholic, but because he refused to recognize Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon.
RE: Mexicans
It’s the gang attack (MS-13 et al) on rule-of-law civil society that is being imported. It is destructive and dangerous (not to mention that we have enough of our own home-grown to deal with.) Gang violence is intimately connected with drug traffic. You can’t stop one without stopping the other.
As per the subject of this post:
In the song, Michael Stipe sings the lines “That’s me in the corner/That’s me in the spotlight/Losing my religion”. The phrase “losing my religion” is an expression from the southern region of the United States that means losing one’s temper or civility, or “being at the end of one’s rope.”…. [wiki]
Gordon@38: It’s even worse than that. The priesthood of the Aztecs swore an oath never to bathe. They weren’t too discriminating about who they sacrificed, either. Women, children (children were actually considered better sacrifices because of their “Purity”), friend, foe. Whatever.
The northern tribes along the US/Mexico border, such as the Yaquis and other desert nomads, had nowhere near the culture and mechanisms of civilization that the more southerly Aztecs had. In fact, crude and disgusting as the Aztecs were, they rightly looked down on the savages to the north and west. The yaquis in particular were outrageous. If and when one of their babies died, they’d shrug their shoulders, bind the dead baby to their belt and then break it out for dinner that night. Baby human roast was apparently a staple of their diet, depending on how much trouble they had keeping their young alive in any given year. Had to be careful if you were just looking for fun with one of their women, though…if they got half the chance they’d kill you, castrate you, dine on your private parts themselves and offer up the rest of you to the tribe for the night’s nourishment.
Lots and lots of the southern Native American tribes seemed to have a real thing about killing and/or eating…well…Native American tribesmen.
So yeah. Let’s bring back Aztlan, with all its creamy goodness. Obviously far superior to anything us crude Yankees have been able to come up with.
@75, above: Got any evidence for any of that? It sounds an awful lot like propaganda told by enemies, which pollutes a lot of the ‘knowledge’ about all Amerind tribes.
wolfwalker, don’t know about the Yaqui’s; do know that along the Texas coast in the early days of European entry there was a group called the Karankawas, who were known far and wide for cannibalism. The other tribes hated them, but they were too strong and fierce to mess with, until the Europeans came. Even so, they did away with most of the early Spanish expeditions that tried to explore the Texas coast.
Disease weakened them (tainted meat, one wonders?) and the Europeans kept coming from north and south – soon they allied with the other Indian tribes and all cooperated to wipe out the Karankawa completely in the early 19th century.
There are no more Karankawa today.
Evidence Suggests Cannibalism Among Native American Tribe
“Coprolite, fossilized human fecal matter, was discovered at the site that tested positive for human DNA – making the discovery one of the more convincing findings pointing toward cannibalism.”