Last month, I wrote a couple of posts on NewsReal criticizing the wisdom of one of my co-bloggers’ calls to “eradicate Islam in the West.” In a nutshell: Islam is a violent, totalitarian religion which needs to be aggressively and honestly confronted, but simply “eradicating” it outright would be not only impossible, but calling for such an eradication would confuse and alienate a heck of a lot of people.
One of my most persistent critics was a commenter using the name “ObamaYoMoma,” whose arguments were as verbose as they were insipid. In a nutshell: The West needs to be totally purged of Islam because it’s not really a religion anyway and therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply to it.
Those interested can check out the sordid, stupid saga at the links above. Suffice to say, no amount of semantic gymnastics about what is or isn’t a religion can erase the fact that we have a First Amendment, and that according to just about every accepted definition of the term “religion” we have, Islam qualifies. And if you really think you’ll find enough public support, enough of a congressional majority, and elect a president who would support criminalizing an entire religion, plus find so much as a single court in the land who would stand for it…well, let me know how much luck you have.
This week, OYM popped up again on another of my posts, regurgitating the same idiocy. He wouldn’t define exactly what “banning” Islam would entail, nor did he answer my question about whether or not the First Amendment places any limits on what we can justly do to bring about Islam’s “eradication.” Instead, he smugly asserted that I don’t know what Islam is, and that I am “blinded by PC multiculturalism like John Gardiano” (wonder if he knows just how well John and I get along, or that John misrepresented my position on Islam).
Inasmuch as I made perfectly clear where I stand on Islam in each of the very posts OYM commented on, it’s hard to see him as much more than a liar or a buffoon. But to end this skirmish on a semi-productive note, let’s see what Robert Spencer, who OYM claims to be a disciple of, has to say on the subject:
The implications of what I’m saying are very bad. There’s no way to sugarcoat them. But there are precedents. And there are useful ways forward — if we have the courage to face this problem as it truly is.
This is a problem within Islamic teaching, within core Islamic teaching, founded on the Quran. As such, wherever there are Islamic communities, there will be terrorism and efforts to impose elements of Islamic law through peaceful means, to assert the precedence of Islamic law over the laws of the state in which the Muslims happen to be residing. That will always happen.
Now, in 1945, the McArthur government — the occupational government in Japan — issued an edict saying that Shinto (the religion of the Japanese that had fueled Japanese imperial militarism in World War II) would have no interference from the United States’ occupying forces as an expression of individual piety, as the religion of any Japanese citizen. No interference whatsoever from the government. However, Shinto would have no role in the government or in the schools.
The distinction was made — it was imposed from without — that Shinto would have no way to express the political militarism that had led to World War II in the first place.
Now, the United States, Great Britain, Europe, are all facing a very similar problem, with growing Muslim communities asserting political and societal notions that are at variance with our ideas of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.
If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.
But of course we’re nowhere near that, because we can’t even admit that there are such initiatives going on from the Islamic communities as such.
And so as long as this unrealism persists, then the cognitive dissonance will continue to grow. And as long as the cognitive dissonance continues to grow, so also will the assertiveness and beligerence of the Islamic communities in the West, because they will see that we are not able and not willing to take the decisive steps necessary to do anything serious to stop them.
This is how we should treat Islam (or any religion, for that matter): firm, honest, and uncompromising toward its elements that are incompatible with liberty, but also thoughtful, responsible, and acknowledging legitimate religious rights. Thankfully, nobody with any real power or influence seems to be parroting OYM’s nonsense.
4 thoughts on “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?”
One of my most persistent critics was a commenter using the name “ObamaYoMoma,” whose arguments were as verbose as they were insipid. In a nutshell: The West needs to be totally purged of Islam because it's not really a religion anyway and therefore the First Amendment doesn't apply to it.
That’s an outright blatant lie. Here is what I actually said:
“is Islam a religion? Yes! Is Islam totalitarian? Yes! The truth is Islam unique in the world is both religion and totalitarianism. Indeed, it’s part of the two faces of Islam.”
Then I said:
“you must take Islam in totality for what it really is, a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal, and when you take Islam in totality for what it really is, it is very clear that it isn’t protected by the free exercise clause of the constitution because the constitution isn’t a suicide pact.”
Now that’s a far cry from saying that Islam, “is not really a religion,” like you said I said above when you deliberately lied. Damn Calvin, I never dreamed you could stoop so low. But, unfortunately, I was obviously wrong.
And if you really think you'll find enough public support, enough of a congressional majority, and elect a president who would support criminalizing an entire religion, plus find so much as a single court in the land who would stand for it…well, let me know how much luck you have.
Of course, anyone can easily go to the referenced post in question and read everything I wrote in response to you and I urge them to, but anyway here is part of my response to Calvin:
“Islam is not just a religion; it is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal, and that fact can be proven in any court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, because you don’t know or understand what Islam is or the threat to freedom that it represents, you believe it is impossible.”
Again Calvin, as other people besides just me and like David Swindle and Jeanette Pryor have also both said as well, Islam in the West must be “eradicated,” and if it isn’t eradicated, then as soon as Muslims gain a majority anywhere in the West, they will simply impose Sharia and the non-Muslim minority will instantly become subjugated dhimmis.
Indeed, in Western Europe many experts are predicting that several European states will become Islamic by the middle of this century, with several other Europeans states soon following suit before the end of the century. Do you have any idea what the implications would be to Western Civilization if and when that actually happens Calvin? Or are you totally incapable of connecting the dots that far out? Luckily, not everyone is nearly so narrow-minded as you are Calvin.
Again Calvin, because ostensibly you don’t understand the threat Islam poses to all our freedom, you naively dismiss the threat, and you couldn’t be more naïve.
He wouldn't define exactly what “banning” Islam would entail, nor did he answer my question about whether or not the First Amendment places any limits on what we can justly do to bring about Islam's “eradication.” Instead, he smugly asserted that I don't know what Islam is,
Let’s be totally forthright and honest Calvin, here is how I responded to your silly and asinine post:
First you said:
“Key words being “just” and “also.” Simple question: does the First Amendment place ANY limits on what we may justly do to “eradicate” Islam?”
And here is my response:
“The first amendment talks about Congress not making laws to establish religion or making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. However, with respect to Islam, it is not just a religion, it is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal. Therefore, when you take Islam in totality for what it really is, it is very clear that it isn’t protected under the first amendment.
If all Islam is was a religion, then I could agree with you, but since Islam is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination, then it is very clear it isn’t protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment as I’m sorry but our constitution isn’t a suicide pact like you seem to believe it is.”
Hence Calvin, it is clear you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Islam is, which is exactly what I said when you falsely accused me of misrepresenting your view on Islam:
“I'd appreciate it if you not misrepresent my view of Islam, especially considering that you've commented on past writings of my which make perfectly clear that I know what it is.”
And to which I responded:
“Yeah right…I previously commented that you should read a few Robert Spencer books and spend about 2 months at jihadwatch.org on a daily basis because it is very clear that you don’t know what it is.”
Inasmuch as I made perfectly clear where I stand on Islam in each of the very posts OYM commented on, it's hard to see him as much more than a liar or a buffoon.
Yeah right, when it comes to truthfully representing my comments on your blog site and others, and with respect to your understanding of Islam as a religion only, it is you, Calvin, who is clearly the liar and the buffoon.
Oh yeah, Calvin, I hope you aren’t alleging that the tiny excerpt of Spencer’s writing you referenced is totally representative of all of his great body of work, because I can assure you that it’s not. Nevertheless, Spencer is only one of many authorities on the subjects of Islam and the global jihad that I reference. There are, of course, many others. Indeed, I only mentioned Spencer because he is closely associated with FPM and NRB.
Nevertheless, even in what Spencer proposes in that small excerpt of his you referenced doesn’t go far enough:
”If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.”
Because again once the Muslims attain majority status they will simply impose Sharia. Hence, even under such restrictions as Spencer proposes above in his small excerpt, it would be analogous to when Obama announced the date for withdrawal from Afghanistan ahead of time. Since the Muslims would just lay low and bide their time until such time as they become the majority. Then, of course, they would use their majority to impose Sharia on the non-Muslim minority.
No, I’m afraid that if we are to stop the stealth and deceptive demographic conquest of the West altogether, Islam in the West must be “eradicated.” Now, I know that because of your extremely sensitive political correct sensibilities you don’t like that word, but nonetheless it is the truth.
Such time wasted over the stupid rantings of a single anonymous commenter on the Internet…this is one of those cases that makes me question the merit of even having comment sections on blogs….I did publish your response on my blog, but that’s all your getting. No more of your comments will be published on CFO.
Can the faux-outrage, pal. At most, the quote you’re whining about wasn’t precise enough, but it’s still a fair assessment of your nonsense: despite the Constitution’s explicit protection of the “free exercise of religion,” which makes no distinction of the merit, quality, or fruits of one religion over another, you’ve been arguing that Islam should be banned ENTIRELY, which would only be constitutional and a sane expectation if Islam “wasn’t really a religion anyway.” To say I “deliberately lied” is nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from your own self-evident dishonesty.
Any honest reader that can pass a high-school English course can see that in the things I’ve written criticizing the approaches of a select few conservatives, NONE of what I wrote implies, or is contingent upon, any sort of belief in Islam being good, safe, or rational in any way. Your insistence on lying about this flies in the face of all the evidence and proves the worthlessness of your commentary. Indeed, most rational people with any degree of familiarity with my blogging are probably laughing their heads off when you say such manifestly-false and moronic things as that I have “extremely sensitive political correct sensibilities.”
Regardless of the wisdom of the “eradicate Islam” terminology, to the best of my knowledge nobody on this website has called for the same thing you call for (and yes, I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that would work in practice, or if you acknowledge ANY limits on what we may justly do to Muslims and the practice of Islam).
Lastly, if you can provide evidence of Spencer or other credible authorities clearly and explicitly agreeing with your idiotic, anti-conservative understanding of the Constitution, or with your plan of simply banning Islam nationwide, you are welcome to do so on NRB. I note that for all your smug chest-puffing about how your lone rantings are somehow mainstream on the Right, you somehow haven’t gotten around to that simple step…