Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
After Bush.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The question of what Conservatism will look like after President Bush departs is one which thoughtful men have pondered for some time now. It is not, I fear, a particularly pleasant one to ponder, but neither is it one that we can neglect. Below is the merest sketch of how we might proceed to answer this question.
It is, in my view, of vital importance that some decisive distance be firmly maintained between the public philosophy intimated by George W. Bush through his policies and rhetoric, on the one hand, and the public philosophy intimated by the arguments of Conservatives, on the other. A thousand pressures of interest, of sympathy, of prejudice, or habit militate against the maintenance of this distance — pressures that would, if unchecked, collapse the distinction between the two and make Bush not only the leader of the Republican party, but also of Conservatism itself. How can this be resisted?
First, it is imperative that we recapture the principle of limited government, which was once the cornerstone of American Conservatism, but which, perhaps above all others has been enervated by achievement of political power. Now a philosophy of limited government is not the same as a philosophy of principled anti-statism. Limited government need not be impotent or feckless government. Nor should an American Conservative imagine this his native political tradition embraces rigid hostility to the state. Skepticism of the state is the more native posture. But over the last decade or so, the trend has been exactly in the opposite direction. Libertarians and anti-statists and fiscal Conservatives have howled and hurled their imprecations against the growth of the state; and all the while elected Republicans, often professed men of the Right, have expanded its scope and influence.
There can be a defensible doctrine of “national greatness,” and I think it is fair to classify it as a right-wing doctrine. There might possibly be a defensible doctrine of right-wing globalism, which as a general principle sets the economic above the political or the ethical principle. There can be a right-wing system of sorts that is congenial to, and even enthusiastic about, a steady growth in the size of the state (which means, as Conservatism has always taught, a corresponding diminishment of individual liberty), whether that state is national or supranational. There can be, in short, a right-wing welfare state, a principled Corporatism as it were. But it cannot be properly called American Conservatism. To conserve, in American politics, means conserving the principle of limited government, or it means nothing at all. How this is to be done — how a party which over the course of a decade made its peace with the steady expansion of the federal state over local and individual autonomy — is a question I leave for subsequent discussion; that it must be done is, in my judgment, beyond question.
Second, we must reconcile ourselves to the very strong thread of skepticism toward war that is undoubtedly a part of the heritage of Conservatism. The recent book American Conservatism: an Encyclopedia is verily bristles with entries dedicated to anti-imperialists, isolationists and pacifists of great variety and vitality. There have been efforts to drive this motley cast of characters from the Conservatism pantheon, but the only success these efforts have met with is a falsifying of our heritage. You may dislike this part of our heritage; you cannot reasonably pretend it does not exist. The Conservative anti-war tradition is grounded on a simple tenet: that, in the old adage, war is the health of the state, that the surest way to enervate the principle of limited government is to undertake ambitious wars. A related tenet is that war is so disruptive of the social order as to often become the midwife of social revolution. It may be necessary, on rare occasions, to make war to protect a social order; but it is always possible that even a defensive war will, usually is unpredictable ways, unravel the same.
“War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.” So wrote General Sherman in his letter to Atlanta’s mayor ordering the expulsion of the city’s civilian population. Few will gainsay Sherman’s aphorism. The refinement since the Civil War has largely consisted of a more efficient application of cruelty. I tremble for my country when I reflect on our efficiency on this head.
What we need, in short, is not more war but less. Totalitarian Islam — and its agency, the Jihad — is at war with us, and will be at war with us until one or the other capitulates or is destroyed. This is a fact, unmovable and bleak. Here is my third point on how Conservatism should look after Bush. The Jihad makes war against us, as on its principles it must, and this fact will only grow in prominence.
But how we carry out our defense need not take the form of “war” as we know it. I have long called for an immediate end to all Muslim immigration, or, failing that, for specific oaths of loyalty, taken on pain of perjury, for Muslims seeking to immigrate here: in fine, for institutionalized discrimination against the Islamic religion in our immigration policy, to put the matter in its starkest form. I have called for this in part because Europe is showing us, as a kind of omen, just how easily the growth of large Muslim populations can carry a society rapidly toward civil war. Is the prospect of civil war implausible? Only to the blind.
I have proposed the introduction of specific sedition laws that mention the Islamic religion by name, taking note of the uniquely pressing threat of the Jihad. Again, I think such legislation justified in part because throwing a man in prison for two years on a wrongful sedition conviction is indeed an injustice; but it is a pittance compared to what injustice might await that same man, and his family, when legislation is no longer an option, when anarchy and civil war are upon us. I say “in part” because there are other justifications as well: justifications not premised on speculation of civil war. One is that Jihad, quite aside from its threat to us, is a wicked doctrine and should not receive the protection of our laws. Another is that we can fight totalitarian Islam by prohibiting it, by letting its stand naked without the shelter of the civil liberties which it seeks to obliterate.
In sum, my third point is that Conservatism should distinguish itself from President Bush — even now, before he leaves the stage — by its unabashed rejection of “the religion of peace” falsehood; its equally unabashed embrace of skepticism toward the Islamic religion as a whole; and its unbending and unembarrassed hostility toward the Islamic doctrine of Jihad. (1) Restoration of the principle of limited government; (2) recovery of a healthy skepticism of war, especially modern total war; (3) principled antipathy for the Jihad — these, it seems to me, are fine grounds for a renewal of our movement and tradition.
« Deeply Encouraging News From Iraq . . . And Some Of The Reaction — Comments (1) | Vets for Freedom takes the Hill — Comments (38) »
After Bush. 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Interesting, on many fronts
by MrMosis
I am wondering if you could perhaps elaborate on the origin of point (2), and how we might reconcile points (2) and (3).
Or perhaps reconcile the current implementation of the war against jihad with "recovery of a healthy skepticism of war".
Maybe I missed it, but I am a little unclear on how to strike the balance.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
brief answers
by Paul J Cella
The origin of point (2) can be found in some of the classic texts of Conservatism. Russell Kirk is a good example. In addition to the Encyclopedia I mentioned, I recommend George Nash's peerless history.
As for reconciling (2) and (3), that's pretty easy: My view is that resistance to the Jihad right now is more a matter of domestic policy than it is of foreign policy. Indeed, we are only really threated by it because Jihadists are in our midst.
Our current policy explicitly rejects that possibility that the Jihad is the natural issue of Islamic political theology. This is a debilitating error.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Thank you for replying.
by MrMosis
I will investigate further.
But I should probably have been more clear. I think what I am more-so interested in is some instances in which popular "conservatism" (or Bush conservatism) is exercising or expressing incorrect (or undesirable) views or policies related to (2).
I agree about our current policy being mired in debilitating error. But I get myself dumbfounded when I consider whether or not a correct policy on the matter is possible to [officially] enact in today's day, age, and climate. It's easy for me and you to tell the truth about it, but can an elected official do the same? A President? Or better yet, can one be elected having already expressed such views? (or having associated with those who do)
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
I question what it looks like under President Bush and it has not been pretty and I for one look forward to rolling back the largesse of government and ensuring that this country never has open borders and 2 more federalist judges, those 3 things and I think we might save this country from the liberalism that invaded it for over 40 years.
Newt Gingrich is unveiling something
by QueenOfCups
for Conservatives in September, I heard... it will be interesting if he is able to rally Americans again. Apparently it is to be something quite comprehensive.
My response to Paul J Cella's post...
by Cheetah772
Well...
I think I'm pretty sure many conservatives have had thought about what their ideology should be about since the beginning of 20th century. The fight on terrorism is simply the latest addition to the conservative ideology.
Also, I'm pretty sure conservatism will survive the next president and countless Congresses. But I think the biggest problem is finding the right kind of spokesman for conservative principles, for whatever reasons, Bush is not that person. I am fearful that the next nominated Republican candidate may not be that person as well.
It's not necessarily the next president we should be concerned about, what about congressional members and candidates? Do they support such conservative principles? If so, are they good spokesmen or leaders that will present the case of conservatism more forcefully? Those are questions we do need answers too. The better the case for conservatism is presented the more chance American public will accept the cornerstone of conservatism -- the principle of limited government.
I think that's all for now...
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
Interesting thoughts
by Whitfox
I'd make two comments:
First, like it or not, a sitting President is the leader of his party, and his policies are publicly identified as party policies. It's a rare case when the two sucessfully diverge, such as the immigration bill. Even that was merely the stopping of a change, not making a desired one. Therefore, we should choose our candidate appropriately.
Second, to restrict First Amendment freedoms as your third point suggests, strikes me as a poor answer to our problem. However, we can and should enforce the age-old requirement on protected religions - that they not call for the overthrow of the government or open violence in society. Clerics who violate this, regardless of religion, should be jailed. Of course, Islam's teachings do call for heightened scrutiny here, and loyalty oaths are not inappropriate.
Restricting thye First
by reldim
Paul makes some suggestions. I don't know that I agree with them, but that's not my point here.
My point for this comment is that, Congress can't restrict the First Amendment. Where the First Amendment reaches Congress is powerless. Does the First reach the area that Paul's statutory recommendations would cover? I don't know - it would certainly be an issue in the courts, and you'd get a flurry of cases similar to those that stemmed from anti-communist/anarchist laws passed during and after World War I. But if the reasonable interpretation of the laws indicates Paul's statute prohibits something that is not protected than he has done nothing to the First Amendment.
That said, I don't believe that anything but the most neurotically detailed and specifically worded sedition law could pass constitutional muster. Scalia voted to strike the flag burning laws, and is pretty "hard-core" about the Free Speech Clause. I don't see him going for this, and that would likely mean little chance for them being upheld (the liberals certainly wouldn't uphold them).
Congress can't restrict the First Amendment.
by mbecker908
Tell that to John McCain and Russ Feingold and the Imperial Senate. If they want to, they'll find a way. The only thing we can hope for is a POTUS with bigger things than GWB or a SCOTUS with another Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas sitting on it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sedition, historically?
by Joe Felice
Have sedition laws like you describe netted a benefit to a society in the past?
Your three principles, Paul:
by spainishirish
(1) Restoration of the principle of limited government; (2) recovery of a healthy skepticism of war, especially modern total war; (3) principled antipathy for the Jihad — these, it seems to me, are fine grounds for a renewal of our movement and tradition.
seem to be the consensus among most Americans, anyhow. There are differences around the margins, but not great ones. Growth in government hasn't gone unquestioned and, briefly, unchecked since 1981. Iraq, and Bosnia and Kosovo before it, probably have intensified our nation's natural hostility toward war. And I don't think there has ever been anything other than antipathy toward jihadists within the United States.
Your proposed solutions, though, probably wouldn't muster a conservative majority let alone a larger American one. All of which is to say you have identified those issues that probably will define American conservatism and guite frankly the mainstream, but even your more benign solutions will be met with outright hostility from all corners. That is not to say they aren't legitimate, only difficult to unlikely to be achieved.
getting rid of a millstone around your neck?
No, I am not being mean to President Bush, but he is not exactly Mr. Coattails right now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Conservativism after Bush
by beguiler
If Bush represents Conservatism, then after Bush it will improve.
Domestic spying by both the FBI and possibly the CIA, half a TRILLION dollars spent on a war we were brought into under false pretense. Allowing the executive branch to circumvent due process to abrogate habeus corpus. Bold faced attempts to short circuit the system of checks and balnces. Kidnapping, torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition.
Why do we need the John Doe provision at all? If I saw someone that I thought was breaking the law in any way I wouldn't worry about a freaking law, if it looked fishy to me then I'd report it to the authorities in a wink.
Are you a conservative or a republican, because these days there is a clear difference.
Hey beguiler, be goner. Troll alert, 4 hours worth. nt
by mbecker908
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Thank you, don't call us, we'll call you.
by Moe Lane
(Shaking head) Kids today.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
A fascinating post, for its
by Bill Bryan
A fascinating post, for its ideas and positions, but perhaps more so for the fact that I agreed so strongly with the first half, only to be thoroughly frightened and angered by the second.
Specific oaths of loyalty? Antipathy toward the Islamic religion as a whole? Restricting immigrants based on religion? Sounds like nails in our coffin. It also sounds very unAmerican if you ask me.
You are right, we do need less war, not more. How on earth do you reconcile that idea with ending all Muslim immigration and fueling sustained antipathy toward Islam? How do you expect those policies to deliver less war?
There is no doubt a serious and troubling problem within Islam today. It is experiencing, in my view, a spiritual famine. An avenue toward winning the WoT is to strengthen Islam so it is a healthy and peaceful religion. That's not impossible, it just takes time, freedom, and hard work.
I believe the Iraq War is not only justified in its response to Islamist terror, it is necessary. But it also necessitates that we take advantage of the opportunity it creates to show the Arab world (and the world at large) what Americans are really made of, and what can be accomplished with democracy and freedom.
Your specific recommendations regarding Islam would destroy all of that hard work.
Is everyone clear here that you are advocating for institutionalized discrimination against an entire religion?? How is this a principled American thought, let alone a conservative one, that will help us win the War on Terror and minimize war??? Where is the logic here?
"I have called for this in part because Europe is showing us, as a kind of omen, just how easily the growth of large Muslim populations can carry a society rapidly toward civil war. Is the prospect of civil war implausible? Only to the blind."
Firstly, I'm under the impression that the difficulties of Muslim assimilation in Europe is a clear sign of effective American immigration, by comparison, and not an omen for things to come. We have millions of hard-working, fully assimilated American Muslims today, quite a few fighting for us in Iraq. Should we round them up and force upon them an oath of loyalty, while telling them it is now a matter of government policy to be skeptical of them and their religion? How will this strengthen American security?
I just cannot wrap my head around this post and reconcile these seemingly illogical connections. A thoughtful, well-written post, but clearly the wrong direction for our country and the world.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
Fully assimulated?
by JSobieski
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Muslim population in the U.S. is better integrated than say the Muslim population in Europe. The recent polling results from Pew Research are worth reviewing.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
"While most Muslims express concern about the
rise of Islamic extremism around the world, they express
relatively little support for the war on terrorism. Just 26%
say the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to reduce
international terrorism. By contrast, a Pew survey of the
general public in 2004 found 67% saying the U.S.-led war
on terror is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism. In this
regard, Muslim American views come closer to the strong
disapproval Muslims in the Middle East have voiced regarding the war on terrorism"
"In addition, the survey finds that younger Muslim
Americans – those under age 30 – are both much more
religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism
than are older Muslim Americans. Younger Muslim Americans
report attending services at a mosque more frequently than do
older Muslims. And a greater percentage of younger Muslims in
the U.S. think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than
primarily as Americans (60% vs. 41% among Muslim
Americans ages 30 and older). Moreover, more than twice as
many Muslim Americans under age 30 as older Muslims believe
that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in thedefense of Islam (15% vs. 6%)."
"Consistent with the views of Muslims in other countries, fewer than half of Muslim Americans – regardless of their age – accept the fact that groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11
attacks. Just four-in-10 say that groups of Arabs engineered the attacks. Roughly a third (32%) expresses no opinion as to who was behind the attacks, while 28% flatly disbelieve that Arabs conducted the attacks. Highly religious Muslim Americans are less likely to believe that groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks than are less religious Muslims. In addition, the survey finds that those who
say that suicide bombings in defense of Islam can be often or sometimes justified are more
disbelieving than others that Arabs carried out the
Sept. 11 attacks."
I said specifically that
by Bill Bryan
I said specifically that millions of American Muslims have fully assimilated, not that ALL American Muslims have fully assimilated.
It would also be accurate to say that Muslims in the U.S. are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. But my original post needs no qualifications or revisions.
The REASON why Muslims are much better assimilated in American society? Answer THAT question, then go back to Cella's original post, and try and reconcile the two.
I am well aware of the report. It also finds that a majority of Muslims in American are "largely happy and fully assimilated."
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
was not a majority, but it was much higher than anyone would like to see, and given the distinction between under 30 and over 30, the number condoning suicide bombing is likely to increase.
I think one key point of the survey is that American born Muslims under the age of 30 are significantly more alienated in outlook and more strident in their religious practices.
If 15% of Catholics thought it was OK to bomb abortion clinics, we would never hear the end of it.
15% of Muslim Americans think suicide bombing is OK, and that is considered a positive number.
Or how about 15% of Evangelicals
by mbecker908
who approved of suicide bombers attending a mosque.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
5
by von
Well said.
Another point should be made: If you let this particular genie out of the bottle -- outright discrimination by the government based on religious views -- you will undoubtably have it applied in all sorts of unexpected ways in the future against all kinds of unexpected persons. This law may spawn other, similar laws regarding other religions -- laws that may be used to discriminate against persons whom Mr. Cella regards as allies rather than enemies.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
But rather than nitpick the
by Bill Bryan
But rather than nitpick the details out of my post, are you willing to accept the idea above that fully open and recognized institutional discrimination of people based solely on their religion should be a U.S. government policy?
I'm truly surprised more folks here haven't expressed disdain at such an idea.
So few men of principles these days, so many partisan ideologues.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
It depends on the religion
by Whitfox
To take an extreme example, if a religion was devoted to child rape, I'd have no trouble persecuting it. It's evil, and it ought to be eliminated from the face of the earth.
Freedom of religion is a political contract, that says we're not going to let the government take sides on our religious disputes. But government can and should oppose religions that do public evil. Claiming God's sanction is not a legitimate excuse for crime.
This distinction is not at all novel. Go back to the Reformation, and you'll see Lutherans - passionately arguing for religious freedom in light of opposition from the Holy Roman Empire - putting to death religious revolutionaries who claimed that civil government was inherently evil. The United States was able to ignore this requirement on religions for some time, because the groups that came here were happy enough with the governments they helped construct. This is no longer the case.
That part of Islam which calls for violent jihad ought to be recognized as a publicly destructive religion. I grant that this is not all of Islam, but it's a significant fraction of the whole. Extra scrutiny is called for - and not even loyalty oaths will do, since Islam allows lies to advance jihad.
Condemns the acts not the religion
by Tiparillo
The "child rape religion" would not be persecuted but prosecuted based on exisiting laws. No religious argument would protect them. Likewise, Islam, in and of itself as a religion, will not protect its members from their actions.
I just don't understand how "fighting totalitariin Islam", as Paul says, is accomplished by the becoming more totalitarian in the US.
Don't Tread on Me
What if
by JSobieski
your religious practices call for you to kill animals in a way that violate animal cruelty laws?
you believe that your religion sanctions marriage to a nine-year old girl?
Christianity, which is a standards-based religion more than a rules-based religion involves relatively fewer "rules" so it is relatively easier to delineate conduct and belief.
In contrast, Judaism and Islam both involve lots of rules that impact a person's every day life--rules that do not seem "spiritual" to the outsiders.
The Koran purports to set forth a comprehensive world view that includes everything from personal hygiene to the government of man. It is not so easy to separate conduct from belief in this context, and if we rule everything off limits, we are going to be in trouble---which we are.
what is the ..
by jdub19
"child rape religion"?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Better to condemn the religion.
by Whitfox
Let's take that ridiculous child-rape religion as an example again. We'll agree on prosecuting the people who do it - but why not also the religous leader that told them God said to do it?
When people are so mentally ill that they hear voices from God telling them to do bad things, we say they're not responsible for their actions anymore. We lock them up in an asylum, not jail.
Well, here's a spiritual leader who's claiming to speak for God. Those who believe him are just as dangerous as the mentally ill I mentioned above. The followers have more guilt, since they ought to have known better than to believe such a wicked man. But I don't see why the wicked man gets a free pass here.
Religion is not an idle jest to believers, but a powerful motivator. The rulers of the past weren't nuts to try controlling religious minorities. Sure, we've found a better way to handle most religions - but it's not at all clear it also works for jihad-by-violence Islamists.
This whole thread has gone
by Bill Bryan
This whole thread has gone off the deep end.
Islam does not commit acts of public evil. Islam's adherents are not mentally ill. Islam cannot be equated to some mythical religion which practices child rape. End of story.
People, not Islam, commit public acts of evil; their reasons, however religious, are a perversion of their religion. Clearly.
Islam is being destroyed from the inside but lunatic terrorists and perhaps the most damaging thing America can do is point the finger at the whole of the Islamic world and its spiritual foundation. Most damaging BECAUSE WE NEED ISLAM TO HELP US DESTROY ISLAMIST TERRORISM. Why is it so difficult to see the dangers in Mr. Cella's post?
Jan Sobieski above stated that those American Muslims below 30 are higher on average to condone jihad, that the trend is bleak. No doubt. So you propose we demand oaths of allegiance from them and discriminate based on religion? This will make America safe???
Or how about, in Anbar, where we're making ground against Al Queda by forging tribal connections, we tell them that yes, we want to work with you, but we must be openly skeptical of your religion, and we don't allow people like you in America because you are Muslim.
I'm sorry for my rash of spelling errors lately and my caps, there's a lot here to be angry about.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
"Islam is being destroyed
by Bill Bryan
"Islam is being destroyed from the inside BY lunatic terrorists"
sorry
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
Perversion or not
by Whitfox
There really are people who believe that God commands acts like 9/11, and participating gets one 72 virgins in heaven. Is there any real dispute of this?
You're welcome to call this a perversion of Islam. I agree that there are many, many Muslims who are perfectly fine citizens. But how are you going to deal with the jihadists who aren't, if you refuse to aggresively hunt them because they hide under Islam's umbrella?
Your expectation that Islam will reform these people is questionable. Islam has been around well over a millenium. When is the jihadist streak going to get painted over? It seems to me external means are necessary, and not just gentle coaxing.
I agree that these ideas are antithetical to the hope that Iraqi democracy will prove our eternal friendship, and will therefore make all these jihadists give up their faith. I just don't believe this for a minute.
"But how are you going to
by Bill Bryan
"But how are you going to deal with the jihadists who aren't, if you refuse to aggresively hunt them because they hide under Islam's umbrella?"
What specifically are you talking about? Who refuses to agressively hunt jihadists?
"Your expectation that Islam will reform these people is questionable."
If you truly believe this then I would submit you have a rather thin understanding of Islam. How else can we expect real societal reform? Mere force and open antipathy? Enumerated laws which say Muslims aren't allowed to be Americans???
This is what Cella has proposed. There are some rather obvious attempts to distort what I am saying here, and thus avoid the actual substance of what Mr. Cella is saying. Perhaps we should discuss those ideas??
Please don't misunderstand me. Islam is eroding from within and is being weakened considerably. We should agressively pursue jihadists wherever they choose (and indeed we choose) to pick a fight. The jihadists are the enemey because they are murderers. They are also the people eroding Islam. They do this because it works to their advantage. Naturally a wise thing to do is limit their advantage. I think Cella's proposals are indeed quite the opposite.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
"There really are people who
by Bill Bryan
"There really are people who believe that God commands acts like 9/11, and participating gets one 72 virgins in heaven. Is there any real dispute of this?"
There is no real dispute that there are Muslims who pervert their religion to justify the killing of innocents. Just please don't then suddenly jump to the notion that the perversion of this religion does not matter. It does.
"Islam has been around well over a millenium. When is the jihadist streak going to get painted over?"
(I understand this is just a continuation of my previous post, I'm old and I sometimes think furiously like choppy waves)
For roughly 1,375 years Islam has managed to develop a culture and working society around its belief system. Violence and war has no doubt been a part of real and significant aspects of its history. But so has peace and coexistence. Look at the track record of interethnic violence in the Ottoman Middle East. I would submit Europe was far more violent throughout most of Ottoman history, comparatively, but that's my humble historical opinion. How were the Greeks and Jews of Smyrna and Saloniki able to prosper for centuries? Where are the civil wars that would have torn asunder the Ottoman state? I haven't the time to get into all the history right now, I only want to intimate Islam does not have a purely violent, one-dimensional history, certainly compared to other religious histories. Surely though this doesn't need to be debated?
Jihad is a well-rooted religious concept which is complex, and has a multiplicity of meanings and contexts. The concept itself needs not be eradicated for us to win the War on Terror. That is a simplification of the threat we face.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
I think the fundamental disconnect
by Whitfox
is that you're seeing this as an attack on Muslims who DON'T believe in jihad-by-violence. As the original poster has said on the thread spawned by this one, that isn't the intent. The problem is when you're hunting lions, you have to search the savannah. You wouldn't want to disturb other creatures in the area - but let's admit they will be disturbed by the hunt. It's a price worth paying.
I'm not interested in historical religious perspectives. There's a large group of self-described Muslims who haven't given up conversion by the sword, including terrorism. They need to be convinced of their error, or forcibly stopped before they succeed in doing violence. You're welcome to work on the convincing, but it's the function of government to address the forcible stopping.
I don't agree with some of the suggestions here. I'm not intersted in targeting Muslims who want Shari'a law, as long as they mean to accomplish their goal democratically. I'm willing to accept Muslim immigrants, though I think extra scrutiny is in order to assure they hold to the Islam you advocate, not that of the violent jihadists. But the First Ammendment was never meant to shelter insurrectionists. It's past time we realized that.
Islam can be distinguished from Political Islam or Islamism, and I am willing to separate the two. However, any attempt to identify Polical Islam will be challenged and characterized as an attack on religion. The political and ideological aspects of Islam are not protected by the 1st amendment to the extent that such aspects involve illegal activities.
Make no mistake about it, if we try to ask immigrants questions about their beliefs regarding replacing the US Constitution with Sharia law, CAIR and others are going to protest that we are violating the 1st Amendment. We need to anticipate such an attack, and not put the Sharia law topic out of bounds. Pre-emptively placing the entire issue out of bounds is both a strategic and tactical error.
One cannot mask an ideology with religion obtain immunity from scrutiny.
It is not a violation of the First Amendment for immigration policy to target specific ideologies.
I think you are on the right track
by pilgrim
I agree with your distinction between political Islamists and Muslims. I strongly disagree with Paul's idea, born out of fear, that all Muslims must be stopped from immigrating to the US. It is a solution equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bath water. We do not require Christians to disavow their religion, but certain actions Christians used to do like burning witches at the stake or marrying several women are no longer allowed to happen in the US. The behavior modification occurred, and not one person had to disavow their Christian faith in the process. I know it is not easy to challenge this way, but it is necessary for survival that we do it. I think the challenge can be made narrowly with out attacking the entire Muslim community.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
You think sharia law is
by Bill Bryan
You think sharia law is somehow a threat to the U.S. Constitution? That the former would actually have a chance at replacing the latter? Is this necessary to ask incoming immigrants for the protection of our government?
Debate the notion of Sharia, take it apart and discuss it freely in a society. Good money is on the enlightened thinker who focuses on peace and understanding. Better money if WE make the decision to help and strengthen that thinking within Islam.
Herein lies the information war we are losing.
I think particular aspects of ANY religion which are illegal should be scrutinized. I respect Islam as a venerable religion which offers salvation to its followers. And God Bless.
"It is not a violation of the First Amendment for immigration policy to target specific ideologies."
It's a violation of First Amendment rights to discriminate based on religion. I thought that was the conversation.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
Religions
by jsteele
It's a violation of First Amendment rights to discriminate based on religion. I thought that was the conversation.
Only if you accept the premise that Islam is solely a religion.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
'scuse me????
by mbecker908
It's a violation of First Amendment rights to discriminate based on religion. I thought that was the conversation.
Amendment I 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Where in there does it say that it is unconstitutional to "discriminate based on religion". Not there. Not in the first amendment. It just says that there will be no "state religion" and than Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.
The first amendment is, at best, silent on whether we can discriminate in our immigration policy based on religion. It absolutely does not forbid it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Then surely Mr. Becker you
by Bill Bryan
Then surely Mr. Becker you prefer the U.S. Government not allow Muslims to immigrate to America based soley on their religion? That we adopt an open policy of antipathy toward Islam as a religion? This is what I meant to say the conversation was about. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
'No law respecting an establishment of religion'
and
'Prohibiting the free exercise thereof' perhaps it's just me, but I see here government not imposing inordinant and unequal policies toward a group of people based on their religion.
If we decide to enact into law a policy which exludes Muslims from potential immigration pools based soley on their religion, does this not violate the above passage? I see 'No Law' as meaning No Law.
But that was some rather impressive mincing of my words
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. Practicing up on our assumptions are we?
by mbecker908
Just how do you come to the conclusion that I want to exclude all "Muslims" from my comment on the first amendment?
Personally, I would not exclude "Muslims" from my perfect immigration plan. I also would heavily restrict residents from virtually every Middle Eastern country from immigrating. Has to do with their governments, not their religion.
But hey, I'd probably embargo Mexicans too. While raising the allowed numbers for other Central Americans and South Americans. And Spaniards. And, for the record, I'd do that just to piss off the Mexicans.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Thanks, beck
by bs
>>>And, for the record, I'd do that just to piss off the Mexicans.<<<
I 'bout choked on my tea on that one...
BWAHAHAHA!
Rather than implying that
by Bill Bryan
Rather than implying that was your opinion, I was implying that was the conversation.
And my questions are actually legitimate. I am interested in whether or not you think the above actions are right.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
I would not eliminate Muslims.
by mbecker908
I would eliminate most immigration from Middle Eastern countries. You can guess which ones.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
your not excused
by pilgrim
True, the 1st amendment does not forbid banning immigrants based on religion. However, morality makes the proposal a slippery slope we do not need to go down. What's next? Are we going to ban the Joooooooooooos from immigrating? We need to make a moral distinction between Muslims and political Islamists. The broad brush may seem like the easy way, but it is the wrong way.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I wasn't responding to a "morality" argument,
by mbecker908
I was responding to a "constitutional" argument.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
kowalski has taken over my spirit. Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.
by mbecker908
And a very narrow constitutional argument at that.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sharia law is sneaking its way into the West
by JSobieski
I agree that Sharia needs to be debated. However, you should realize that many will consider a debate on Sharia to be anti-Islamic and Islamophobic. Does this mean we should stay silent in order to have more moderate allies?
Sharia is sneaking its way into the West impacting Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8785
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4215182.stm
http://www.carypolitics.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=107
On the recommendations
by zuiko
I have no problem taking country of origin into account and trying to reduce the inflow of immigrants from countries of interest in the war on terrorism, but I couldn't support any kind of total ban on Muslim immigrants. Besides the fact that you can't test for belief in Islam (a serious problem with your restrictions), there are other problems. There are a whole lot of good Muslims out there. These are people who could make valuable contributions to the United States. Why should they be banned en masse based on their religious beliefs? These good Muslims are an important resource that will help is in this conflict. We won't win this conflict until most of Islam is brought into the 21st century and the Muslims who want to live in the middle ages are an insignificant minority. We need to embrace good people inside of Islam to have any chance at doing this.
I'm also not clear on how the anti-war isolationist stuff is going to be of much help. We have interests all around the world. Do we ignore attacks on our interests and go back to our pre-9/11 mindset, where if it doesn't happen in Manhattan it isn't worth worrying about?
Oh I know, we got the speech and immigration restrictions to fall back on. We didn't have that on 9/11. But do you really expect any amount of restrictions on speech or immigration are going to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil against a committed foe? I sure don't. People will still slip through immigration restrictions. People will lie about their religious beliefs to get through. People will come into this country illegally. People will lie low and wait for a chance to attack.
A purely defensive law-and-order strategy in the GWOT is a losing one. We are not an island. We can't ignore the rest of the world and wait for the enemy to come to us. We've tried that a few other times in the past and it hasn't worked out so well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
I'd have one quibble
by Neil StevensIncorrect. The pressure
by Han PritcherAny resemblance to the main character in this movie
by JoliphantTo go a little further: I
by Han PritcherNever
by Neil StevensHow is this a brave thing to do ?
by JoliphantNo. I do not. I believe
by Han PritcherI agree entirely. The
by Han PritcherDarn laptop mousepad mishap.
by jonlesterInteresting from a strategy perspective
by JoliphantBut you had plenty of time to prepare for this, heh
by Neil StevensEqual as in one man, one vote, as a citizen.
by jonlesterI think a true ideologue
by FlagstaffGREETINGS BLESSED FRIEND DAVID
by Neil StevensI credit Obama with two things he's done well.
by jonlesterVery true. However, neither
by Han PritcherYou've known it'd be one of two people since S.C. (nt)
by Neil StevensPast and recent experience with Progressive:
by jonlester
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---