Redstate

...Student Ryan Ahmad, ... "Americans seem to have more fun. Muslims try to be American, but we don't know how. The cultures are so different."...

Whereas TIME names him as Ryan Ahmed, Paul attributes this quote to "a freshman" at the school, and says that it shows more wisdom than most Western commentators.

So what are we to make of this? A freshman would be 14-15 years old and already he has been taught to see the world as "them" (Americans) and "us" (Muslims). I wouldn't assign this to uncommon wisdom on his part, he was taught this; this view did not come to him in a 'vision.'

If this child is an immigrant, I'd question why his parents brought him to this terrible country if they see things as world of "them" and "us?" But with a first name like Ryan there is a better than even chance he was born in this country. How can his parents and teachers justify starting him down the road of "them" and "us?" He has already been taught that one can't be a Muslim and be an American; eventually something will have to give.

If Muslims are raising children in America that can't be American there will be problems in the not too distant future.

So, what are we to make of this?

the United States faced (or believed it faced) a very similar problem with Roman Catholicism. In those days we should recall the Roman Church was definitely not on the side of freedom. The Inquisition had been a going concern within living memory. 19th Century popes were issuing condemnations against democracy and religious freedom; and some even inveighed against railroads, smallpox vaccinations and the use of anestheisa. Roman Catholic immigrants were seen as a dangerous Other who might well subvert America's Protestant and Anglo-republican heritage. The KKK spared time from its persecutions of the freed slaves to direct some of its fierce vitriol against Roman Catholics. Lawmakers scrambled to pass laws banning the use of public money for religous (mostly meaning Catholic) schools. The Democrats were tarred with the claim that they were the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion".

So what happened? Well, America was the land of opportunity and the universal solvent of America's culture ultrimately undid the old country shackles on the immigrants and turned them into Americans with much the same goals and aspirations as their Protestant compatriots. Perhaps more importantly, an American educated Roman Catholic clergy came into existence who began, cautiously, to weave strands of American republicanism into Roman Catholic political thought. In time this caught on even in the old countries (Nothing succeeds like success after all, and America was definitely a success story in those days) and indeed, the Vatican II Council set aside much of the old illiberalism and instead embraced an Americanized view of democracy and religious liberty.

Could this happen with Islam? I don't know. Some of the elements are still in place: most Muslim immigrants climb the ladder of economic success in this country (unlike their breathren in much of Europe) and their children end up fairly well Americanized. Even the very "decadence" that some decry may help lose some of the bonds of Islamic intolerance (or at least of Islamic misogyny). The key development would be the appearance of an Americanized Islam with an American born and educated clergy-- which can then influence the illiberal mullahs and ayatollahs in the old country. Rome's transformation from tyrant church (in Protestant imagination) to champion of human rights did not occur overnight. For Islam's future we will, simply, have to wait and see.

Paul -

THanks for the link to this interesting article.

My great-grandparents came here in something like 1902.  They never spoke English well.  At the time they came, they (as Catholics) were members of a suspect religious minority.  They spoke Italian at home, kept to their own community, and never fully integrated into the US.

I was born in NYC and grew up on Long Island.  A prominent group in NYC are the Hasidim, who are vividly and emphatically separatist, who have their own schools, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers, and who live in insular communities, frequently suspicious of their neighbors and to some degree vice versa.

I also lived for a while in Philadelphia, where emphatically separatist Amish and Mennonite communities were a very visible part of the mix.

With one significant exception, I see little if any difference between the Muslims in the article and the Italian, Hasid, and separatist Christian communities I've mentioned.  Hijabs are, to my mind, little different from Hasidic skull caps, Amish bonnets, or Italian black veils.  Arabic class is, to my mind, little different from Hebrew class or Italian or German spoken at home.  All of these groups differ from the mainstream, in some ways for the better.  All struggle to find a balance between their own faith and culture, and that of the society they live in.

The significant difference is 9/11 and the other attempts at terrorist violence on the part of resident Muslims.

I don't share your sense of the US as being a specifically Christian nation by intent, nature, or destiny.  I do share your unease as to how to welcome Muslims here while simultaneously taking seriously the hostile rhetoric of some Muslim clergy.  Unfortunately, we can't afford to write it off as harmless posturing.  People have been killed.

The Islamic Center near me has an "Islam 101" lesson on their website.  In that lesson, one of their teachers explains how recognizing secular, civil law as authoratative is a subtle but real form of polytheism.  I don't understand how that point of view fits here, nor do I understand how to accomodate those that hold it in light of the fatal seriousness of recent events.

I don't care to frame the current situation as a conflict between Islam and Christendom.  I'm also not concerned that an infusion of Arab and/or Muslim culture and tradition, in and of itself, will cause harm to the US.  I am, however, concerned about folks coming to live here who do not care to be American, with the requirement for mutual tolerance and respect that that implies.

Any thoughts?

Cheers -

For Islam's future we will, simply, have to wait and see.

Yes, but we do not have to let this grand experiment run its course here. How about we "wait and see" what Islam does to Europe? How about we "wait and see" what Islamic Democracy does to Iraq?

In no way are we obligated to allow Islam to thrive here in America. There are perfectly legal and legitimate ways to make known that we are still evaluating it. And there are perfectly legal and legitimate ways of making known -- if it comes to this -- that it is unwelcome.

Your sketch of the history of Roman Catholicism in America is interesting but irrelevant. There have always been Catholics here, and Catholcism is not Islam.

to condemn these Muslims, take a few minutes to google "Christian Identity" and visit some of the websites of Christian Identity and affiliated churches.  Radical Christianity in this country is as much, if not a greater threat (because nobody is watching them very closely) than radical Islam.

is that Christian groups like that are marginalized and not supported by the moderate voices.  I also just don't see a huge threat coming from this avenue, just look at Fred Phelps.  I can't think of a single Christian voice that actually defends what that man does.  Sure he keeps on doing it, but nobody with any sense defends even remotely what he does.

Right now there aren't that many moderate voices out there ready to condemn much less marginalize the islamic jihadists.  There are a few, but not enough, and even many of the "moderate" Muslims I see on tv or in the papers tend to add some pretty huge "buts" along with a defense of those radical muslims.

That is a problem.

guess you've never heard of the FBI

Now, let me know when the Berserker Baptists start strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up kids at Disneyland

otherwise, DO stop the pernicious sophistry that "Radical Christianity" is a greater threat than Islamism.

See also: McVeigh, Timothy

when the building went down, you didn't see any Christians dancing in the streets in celebration, they were caught, convicted and Timothy is no longer with us.

Nobody got on tv and defended what they did.

Also, was their action about religion?  Seems to me it was more about anti government and race issues.

Since we happen to be engaged in an undeclared war with radical islam (initiated by them) why would we want to bring into the country more potential enemy sympathyzers and even combatants? If the country needs more immigrant workers (a separate debate), there is abundant supply from Latin America and, I think, Eastern Europe.

Tim McVeigh hated the Federal government- clearly insanely ..his was a separatist political statement

Eric Rudolph is certainly a "religious" terrorist

and he is so described and reviled. Do you see the Christian community embracing him? Do you see thousands of Christian mothers hanging pictures of Rudolph in their homes as a hero and someone to emulate? Are there sermons in thousands of churches across this country every Sunday exhorting the children to honor their parents and their religion by becoming martyrs against the "unclean" ones? Any world leader offering blood money to the families of Xtian-suicide-terrorists?

Eric Rudolph, according to you, is the equivalent of WTC 1993, 9/11, the Cole, African embassy bombings, Hebrew University bombing, Hamas Convenant, the fatwa against Jews & Crusaders, disco/schoolbus/mall bombings, et al?

Are you that anti-Christian or just totally ignorant of what Islamism is all about?

The FBI is watching.

Most of the militia movement has no racial overtones and does not espouse bigotry; there are some black and Jewish militia members. However, the pseudo-religion of Christian Identity, as well as other hate philosophies, have begun to creep into the militia movement. This scenario is currently being played out in the Michigan Militia, arguably the largest militia group in America. Lynn Van Huizen, leader of the Michigan Militia Corps, is currently trying to oust Christian Identity factions from his group. Christian Identity is a belief system that provides both a religious base for racism and anti-Semitism, and an ideological rationale for violence against minorities. This pattern of racist elements seeping into the militia movement is a disturbing trend, as it will only strengthen the radical elements of the militias.

Many white supremacist groups adhere to the Christian Identity belief system, which holds that the world is on the verge of a final apocalyptic struggle between God/Christ and Satan (The Battle of Armageddon) in which Aryans (European Caucasians) must fight Satan's heirs: Jews, nonwhites and their establishment allies (i.e., the Federal Government). The Christian Identity belief system (also known as Kingdom Identity) provides a religious base for racism and anti-Semitism, and an ideological rationale for violence against minorities and their white allies. Christian Identity teaches that the white race is the chosen race of God, whites are the "true Israelites" and Jews are the Children of Satan. Adherents believe that Jews have increasingly gained control of the United States Federal Government and are attempting to enslave the white population by enacting laws subjugating the white people, such as affirmative action, pro-choice, and anti-gun statutes.

It seems like they may be 'known to law enforcement'.  The teaching was not originally that whites were Israelites, but that English and Scots in America were, but no doctrine lasts without some changes if the hierarchy isn't firm.

I have to admit I am not worried about a Christian Fundamentalist wearing a ball-bearing vest and taking mass transit to his own funeral.  When the Pope or PatRobertson calls for each of us who loves life to murder a pagan woman to show his love for God, I could start to worry.  Until then, I think there are several more Islamic leaders asking for more love than we really need.

You are right, there is no evidence that McVeigh was  associated with any kind of Christian movement.  It was an honest mistake though-- many anti-government, racist organizations are explicitly "Christian" organizations.  Aryan Nation, Christian Identity, KKK, etc.  These groups are obviously not representative of true Christianity.  But I think it is equally unfair to say that Muslim extremists are representative of their entire religion.

There is no such thing as a monolithic Christian community that uniformly condemns and praises various actions.  There are many Christian communities.  Most are peaceful and condemned Rudolph for actions that were obviously against the basic tenets of the religion.  But there are Christian communities that consider Rudolph a hero.

There are also many Muslim communities.  Many, most in fact, condemned 9/11 and do not use terrorism to achieve their goals.  Sadly, others are not so peaceful.  But that is no more reason to hyperbolize about the evils of "Islamism" than groups like Christian Identity are reasons to condemn Christianity as a whole.

And I must have missed where I said Rudolph "is the equivalent of WTC 1993, 9/11, the Cole, African embassy bombings, Hebrew University bombing, Hamas Convenant, the fatwa against Jews & Crusaders, disco/schoolbus/mall bombings, et al".    Please link to it and I will apologize.

am I, as a Jew, required to explicitly condemn years of state-sponsored murder by Israel, even though I may deem it necessary for Israel's survival?

The free exercise clause protects me and you and Muslims alike.  There aren't really "perfectly legal and legitimate ways to make known that we are still evaluating it" or "making known -- if it comes to this -- that it is unwelcome."  

Furthermore, I have extensive contacts in my local Muslim community, and the Muslims I know universally condemn terrorism, be it suicide bombers or 9/11 or the Iraqi insurgency, in the strongest terms.  The more people who come out in public and say, "No they're not!  Look!  The school is next to the mosque!," the more likely gullible Americans who have never met Muslims will believe it.  This is dangerous.

I know and respect that this is by and large a Christian-oriented site.  I just don't buy that a Christian orientation (or even an Evangelical orientation) requires the sort of knee-jerk anti-pluralism shown here.

am I, as a Jew, required to explicitly condemn years of state-sponsored murder by Israel, even though I may deem it necessary for Israel's survival

I'm having a hard time parsing this, if you deem it neccessary for Israel's survival, how can you call it murder?
-bro

...There are also many Muslim communities.  Many, most in fact, condemned 9/11 and do not use terrorism to achieve their goals...

Where is this outpouring of condemnation? Just sitting here I can not recall any unequivocal public condemnations of terrorism from any Muslim leaders in America. Generally what we have seen is a vague "while we don't approve of these acts, but you  have to try to understand what drives the terrorists, yada, yada, yada" from the likes of CAIR et al.

I agree that there are undoubtedly Muslims who are horrified and repulsed by these heinous acts. But until they start standing up and actively working against the facilitators and apologists it isn't going to make much of an impression.

will be so kind as to test your moral compass and open a school next to a CI book store.  I'm sure they could be persuaded to hold a press conference to explain they have nothing to do with the book store aside from a shared store front.  I'll be the one blue in the face waiting for your defense.

But what's your read on the rest of the blurb, excerpted in Paul's OP, from one of the linked articles:

The Universal School makes clear its independence from the controversial institution right next door, the copper-domed Bridgeview mosque. Built a decade before the school, the mosque was started by moderates but then saw a power struggle in which hard-liners came out on top. Among its leaders, said the Chicago Tribune in an investigative report, "are men who have condemned Western culture ... and encouraged members to view society in stark terms: Muslims against the world." Last year a member of the mosque was indicted for allegedly funneling money, before 9/11, to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group.

Anything?

Jip,

We are not talking pluralism here.  We are talking survival.  There has been so much documentation over the years of the wahabbi funded mosques in the US and elswhere preaching hate toward anyone or or anything not islamic.  The USA is not obligated to bring into the country radical islamists who are at war with our country and our culture, and those radical islamist who are already here should be deported.

That the original post, and Paul's follow-up, tar with an enormously broad brush.  Please don't think I'm insulting your intelligence by rehashing old news, but a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims in this country are fundamentalists or wahabbis.  I'd be first in line to suggest that we deport or incarcerate all 26 proponents of this philosophy within our borders by any means necessary - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  However, if what we want is to defeat wahabbism, I suggest we begin by cutting off trade and diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, by far its strongest proponent.

If your point is that we should be careful of who we allow to immigrate here, I agree.  If your point is that immigrants often have difficulty assimilating into America, I also agree and add that this is to be expected and certainly happened to my family at Ellis Island. If your point is that law-abiding Muslim immigrants and citizens already in this country are guilty of supporting terrorism until proven innocent, I disagree strongly.  

the people the Israeli Army kills are sometimes (I'd say not usually, but sometimes) innocent or guilty of crimes that don't merit death.  To the extent that this absolutely cannot be avoided in the pursuit of legitimate goals, this is necessary, but still murder.

Now it seems like you are equating collateral damage to murder.  I think I liked your first comment better.
-bro

I wish people would be more careful with words.

Murder is the deliberate, premeditated taking of a life. The fact the people die as a result of military action does, in and of itself, not constitute murder.

for this stat:

Please don't think I'm insulting your intelligence by rehashing old news, but a tiny, tiny minority of Muslims in this country are fundamentalists or wahabbis.

Re: Yes, but we do not have to let this grand experiment run its course here.

Unless you are suggesting that we deport all Muslims currently in this country, including those who are native born citizens, then we do indeed have to wait and see what happens. The horse is already out of the barn on this one. Too late to shut the barn door! And are you prepared to tear up the 1st Amendment to try to do so?

And yes, the history of Roman Catholicism is relevant here, extremely so if you would please consider history. That English Catholics were in America in the 17th cnetury is besides the point because they were ENGLISH Catholics, already assimilated by and large (somewhat the equivalent of Black Muslims: native born citizens with solid American roots who happen to be members of an alien religion). The Catholicism that was feared in the 19th century was not that of the Maryland Carrolls but that of the Irish, the Italians, the Poles and others fresh off the boat. They were the bearers of an illiberal tradition which, two centuries earlier had been "The Enemy" in the world's greatest (at the time) cultural conflict, that between the Romano-Keltic and Catholic south of Europe and the Germano-Protestant north. In much the same way if the only Muslims we had to deal with were our Black Muslims I think we would not be having this debate: most of us would note that the Black Muslims may be a bit odd in their beliefs and practices, but that the religion does have a salutary effect on those who follow it and so much better for them. The issue is not Islam per se, but Islam plus immigration. Will these Muslims assimilate and will they in turn influence the old country Muslism toward liberality? I don't know, and I admit as much in my post. The Roman Catholic experience shows that it's possible (because human nature is primary and trumps religious ideleogy) but it certainly does not suggest that it is certain. One thing that concerns me is the excess mingling of religious identity with political identity in today's American culture: this could well be a factor that will retard or prevent the cultural assimilation of American Islam. The late 19th century with its Blaine Amendments and the like built that old Wall of Separation between Church and State higher than it had been, fencing off Catholicism (and also Mormonism) from the political world until it could assimilate fully. As late as 1960 John F Kennedy had to disavow loyalty to Rome in order to qualify (in the voters' minds) for the presidency. Perhaps we need to do the same today, and restore the upper tiers of that Wall which some of our own have been busily tearing down over the last generation. And yes, we may need to throttle back quite a bit on the immigration flood in order to assimilate those already here-- I have agreed with you there on your previous immigration threads. Let American Muslims grow rich and freedom-loving and a little bit decadent until someday there are mosques celebrating same sex Muslim unions (with the same effect that such controversy has had on Christian churches) and a Muslim version of Brittany Spears belly-dancing across MTV as Muslims grandmothers roll their eyes about it.

right at the roots, ideologically speaking. Christianity has always had some concept of Separation of Church and State even back when the two were very much in bed together. There was a king and a civil government; there was a Church with its bishops and the like. And in addition there is no religious Law in Christianity-- there are moral precepts, yes, but no body of divinely inspired legal statutes that are intended to be enforceed by civil government as Shari'a is in Islam. The few Christian sects who try to promote Leviticus to this position are very much aberrant (and also very inconsistent, since even they do not accept the whole of Leviticus), and they are practicing an extreme form of something that was condemned as a heresy right from the first ("Judaizing"-- the insistence on maintaining the Law).

So the question is, Can Islam develop a theory of Separation between Mosque and State?

was, by all accounts, not any sort of Christian believer. He was a lapsed Catholic and an agnostic.

The comparison with Catholicism is quite apt.  It reflects the same near-hysterical fear of the other you represent in your original post.  The English Catholics in Maryland and other enclaves were accepted as Englishmen (with some reservations).  Once the flavor of Catholicism began to take Irish, German, and Italian forms (Poles were later) the country began to worry whether we could accomodate such foreign, dangerous, and generally unamerican people.  Part of the fear was that they would place the authority of their religion above the secular authority of the nation.  Partly it was due to a belief that their cultural heritage was incompatible with the WASPy nature of the foundation.

You can also see parallels in our treatment of Chineses and later Japanese and other Pacific rim countries, or the current Hispanic "menace."

Anyway, if we want to deal with xenophobia, we might as well look at other xenophobic moments and see what we can glean from them.  

We must drain the swamps by pursuing freedom in the Muslim world.  One of the many facets of that strategy is to allow some Muslims into the country to experience our democracy first hand.  Muslims in America are an interesting crowd.  Here are a few lesser known facts.

The largest group of Muslims is African-Americans (42%) followed by South Asian-American Muslims (25%) with only 12% being Arab-American Muslims.

In one limited study, the average income of American Muslims was calculated at just over $50,000 a year, much richer than the American average.

"Not more than three percent of Muslim children, however, acquire any formal Islamic schooling outside of their home."

Elsewhere, I have read that Muslims generally have significantly higher levels of education than the general public.  This and the income level is due to the selective bias of immigration where we let in the most educated members of other countries and then their families.  This includes many engineers and doctors specifically.

I believe allowing more Muslims into free countries to experience our democracy helps spread it to Muslim countries.  The ex-patriot Iranian community is quite active in helping push Iran toward abandoning its dictatorship.  We should not overwhelm the country with a huge influx of Muslims; however, we should not make the other mistake and cut off our country as a beacon of hope for those who want to live free.

Yes, I see ALL those hysterical films that have been produced since 9/11 coming from Hollywood dealing with Islamism. Let's see theres ... um...

hmmmmm..

well, on tv there was .... 24 hrs?

Oh well, CAIR took care of that, eh?

You can look at the fact that almost all terrorist acts worldwide in recent history have been rooted in Islamism..an ideology dedicated to the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate where every individual has but three choices (convert, submit or die) ... and it's us, the kaffir trying to expose such ideology for what it is who are hysterical?

And what kind of PC bar are you setting that condemns people..including a lot of Americans of Hispanic background... who do NOT support illegal aliens as "xenophobic"?

Geez... shades of Walter Duranty

Unless you accept the notion that we are actually at war with Islam itself, the bulk of Muslims in this country are only at best tangientially related to the conflict we are engaged in.

And I do love the internationalist wing of the Republican party!  If only we could pare off the unilateralist component....

Muslims whatsoever, without distinction, be deported or denied entry.  Based on the surveys most of us have seen since 9/11, we can have an idea as to which Mosques are teaching radicalism, harbouring radicals, or are subject to radical influence, and we could take appropriate measures.  

Moreover, while I would love to see the development of a substantial cohort of Islamic moderates, ie., those who reject aggressive jihad, sharia-as-societal-imperative and so on, I would not wish upon their communities the sort of decadences that you seems to take as indices of progress.  Still less do I I perceive in the elevation of the mythical Wall of Separation - a late and alien plant in our political soil, at least as interpreted by elites since the close of the Second World War - a solution to the conundrums of religion and public life that so roil the body politic.  That dubious notion has only elevated the temperature of public discourse, and citing an Islamic fundamentalist peril as justification for its continuance will not be the cause of a miraculous reversal.

And I am afraid that I don't see as much in the analogy to Catholicism at an earlier stage of American history.  Catholicism and Islam have different histories and different doctrinal traditions and resources, not least with respect to the capacity each has for moving beyond the "Wars of Religion" phase of history; those resources have been prominent within Christianity from its beginnings, while those in Islam, while certainly not nonexistent, are much weaker in consequence of a multitude of doctrinal and historical factors - were it not so, we would not always hear ourselves calling for the emergence of more Islamic moderates.  Whatever the cultural differences and bigotries which lay back of the idiotic anti-Catholicism of the past, no rational man really believed that more Catholics in America would reignite the Thirty-Years War, or anything like it; they worried about the integrity of their culture.  We, on the other hand, are everywhere and at all times enjoined that to worry about the latter - as though culture were nothing more than the mere aggregation of individual satisfactions - is an act of mental bigotry, despite the fact that there are Muslims in America who do long for some sort of religious conflict.  

It is an analogy, to be sure, but I don't see that we get a whole lot of mileage out of it.

The Royal Families of Europe all ruled by divine right--that is God and Jesus said they were meant to be King or Queen.  In England, the Queen is still the titular head of the Church of England, and every member of the clergy swears an annual oath of fealty to her individually as head of the Church.  Have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire, although most of the various rulers who constituted the government of Empire were hereditary, some were positions directly appointed by the Vatican (e.g., the Prince Bishop of Franconia whose seat was in Wuerzburg, Germany).  

Until Napolean introduced his civil code in the early 19th Century, the legal system was almost completely dominated by the Church in continental Europe.  In England a dual civil and ecclesiastical system developed, although the religious role in the courts was ended much earlier than on the Continent.  The jury system was a direct response to the excesses of the ecclesiastical courts.  The distinction survives to this day in our legal system when we talk about cases that are in "law" (where jury trials are available) and "equity" (where they are not).  

Even in the U.S., religions have tried to implement their own theocracies.  That is why the Mormons were chased all the way to Utah and some breakaway Mormons still live in isolated little towns in the desert.  And what do you think the whole David Koresh fiasco was about?

That is exactly what Paul has argued:

(1) Cease all immigration from Islamic countries, excepting specifically persecuted minorities.

(2) Deport all Muslims here illegally (or, if that sounds too discriminatory, deport all who have shown the least hint of sympathy for terrorism.)

And he received high marks in the comment ratings (5/4.00).

So while I try my best to understand the rising xenophobia, I will most definitely draw the line here.  We should not stop letting Muslims into the country because of their religion or nationality.  If there is evidence of ties to terrorist groups, then of course stop them.  But that is true of all immigrants, not just Muslims.

Why a Bangladeshi engineer or an Indonesian doctor poses some unique threat to the nation is beyond me.  And I still believe it is necessary to open your doors to some from all backgrounds so that they experience a country based on law, freedom, and democracy.  

The mileage comes from a comparison of overwrought fears of cultural destruction then and the same fears now.  The fears that assimilation will fail, that a culture is so alien that it will overcome our own, or that it will change our culture inalterably and for the poorer.  It has never happened, despite repeated claims throughout our history that some immigrant group would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Does anyone have figure on just how pervasive Muslim immigration really is?  I'm curious.

with point 2, I do believe that point 1 is not beyond that pale; at the very least, the emergence of a sizable contingent of vocal and influential Islamic moderates is the precondition for its being pulled off the corner of the table: without them, we have no basis for the belief that Islam means us no ill.  

sketched why we have reasons for believing that Islam, in the absence of the moderates we all seem to want, is in fact different from Catholicism is this regard.  We do have the right to defend the integrity of our culture and the extent to which it is to be modified; it is a culture, a common inheritance, and not the sum total of personal satisfactions.

You said no one was calling for an end to Muslim immigration.  They are.  And they are wrong to do so.

We do have the right to defend the integrity of our culture and the extent to which it is to be modified

How do you defend the integrity of a culture?  Traditionally we people try to do this they because xenophobic and jingoistic.  

Either we believe that our culture is inherently superior, as most people, and impervious to assault or we must accept that it is flawed and subject to metamorphisis when confronted with opposiing cultures.

The current "war" is certainly a cultural war.  IMO,  our culture IS INHERENTLY superior and that is why it has always overcome other cultures in our history.  It is superior because it is pluralistic and adaptable.  Our freedoms allow people to come to the natural conclusions that our forefathers did, namely that certain rights are inalienable.

to "defend the integrity of our culture."  What is it you fear?  What distinguishes you from Blaine, et al?

Sorry about the typos.  This should read....

Traditionally when people try to do this they become xenophobic and jingoistic.

Merely suggesting that, while I don't yet perceive the necessity of going to those lengths, I can easily imagine circumstances which would render that option much less unpalatable.  Paul evidently believes - although he doesn't need me to write for him - that that moment may have arrived.  I'm not so sure.  So, if my original statement is irritating, allow me to qualify it: No one is calling for an end to all Muslim immigration, without distinction, without having reasons for doing so.  Then, let's discuss those reasons and the question of whether there exist a set of circumstances which would transfer the proposition from the "wrong" column to the "maybe" column.  

All too often, "protecting our culture" is a phrase used to hide the fact that someone is pandering to what would be called religious bigotry (or bigotry of another stripe) if it were aimed at evangelical Christians or folks who aren't Arab or Hispanic.

The last time I checked, the First Amendment did not exclude Islam from its protection of freedom of religion.

95% of those students go on to college.  That's pretty good schooling.  So while I am quite uncomfortable with the way that women are treated in Islam:  sit at the back, wear headscarves, long black robes while out in the sun playing basketball,....  The fact that the majority of the young women are going to college and that there is a woman serving as principal gives me some solace with regard to this particular shool.

I was also interested to note that they were studying "To Kill a Mockingbird".  What a great book to consider when discussing the current "Uncomfotable Problem".  I think there's a Master's Thesis there if anyone wants one.

 ... courts of law and equity is completely off; you're ignoring the profound (and international) influence of the merchant's law; you're also ignoring the influence of the old Roman law; moreover, the right to jury trial came primarily as a result of the excesses of the king, not the Church*; etc.; etc.

*See, e.g., the Magna Carta.

it has always overcome other cultures in our history

This is true, but it is not true that this has always been accomplished by being nice until the other guys gave up. The German-American Bund, for example, was treated rather harshly... its leaders imprisoned, and so on.

The Wahhabis would appear to represent a similar sort of force, and before it's over they may have to go the way of the Bund.

that I find this line of questioning enormously wearisome?  It seems that we have a row over it every month here, and yet, the same questions end up being asked and answered time and again without end.

No, it is not the case that the only reason for which people attempt to preserve their cultures is that they are xenophobes, haters and bigots.  They may simply love their way of life and believe that because it is theirs, and the reflection of their history, that it is something more than a mere want, and that it is worth perpetuating.  Like the better impulses within Islam.  Like what is good about Europe, even in her senescence.  And this is what demostrates that your next paragraph embodies a set of false alternatives; it is not the case that our culture is either static or subject to unlimited, undefined change when confronted by opposing cultures.  We can define the pace and extent of the evolution of our culture.  Remember, we are talking about Islamism here, not the Italians and the Irish.  We are under no obligation, whether of morality or historical necessity, of amalgamating our culture and that of the jihadists.

Finally, if we do believe that our Western culture is superior, we will have to dispense with the notion - a silly one at that - that our pluralism enatails an absence of boundaries or limits defining what can, and cannot, be assimilated.  Without, them, one runs swiftly into the arms of a paradox, which, on the ground, translates into the sort of problems Europe is experiencing with her own unassimilated Muslims.

And why should I care about anything he has to say?

What is required, in order to defend our culture, is the exclusion, not of Muslims qua Muslims, but of those known or suspected to be radical, or, because they have entered the nation illegally, give us no real reason not to worry about them.  That is all I am discussing.  As to whatever else may be required to defend and define our culture, as long as the courts keep their hands out of it, I'm sure we'll do just fine, as we always have done.

of the other!

You can look at the fact that almost all terrorist acts worldwide in recent history have been rooted in Islamism..an ideology dedicated to the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate where every individual has but three choices (convert, submit or die) ... and it's us, the kaffir trying to expose such ideology for what it is who are hysterical?

Not only is this over the top hysteria, it isn't even true.  At worst, the Caliphite the Islamists are seeking stretches from North Africa to Southeast Asia, not worldwide.  As for "almost all terrorist acts worldwide in recent history" being rooted Islam, give me a break.  You are ignoring the Basque separtists and the IRA in Europe and the Sarin subway attacks in Japan.  Or how about the worst act of terrorism in recent history, the Rwandan genocide, which was a tribal dispute carried out while the Anglican Church of Rwanda stood aside and did nothing to try and prevent it.  Heck, this site even had a post about the state-sponsored terrorism going on in Zimbambwe going on right now.  

Need I remind you that, except for 9/11, every terrorist attack on American soil in the last fifteen years or so that has resulted in injury or death, from Oklahoma City to abortion clinic bombings, has come from right wing, often Christian, extremists.

I repeat the point that only 12% of American Muslims are Arab.  Most South Asian-American Muslims and African-American Muslims (who are mostly converts) don't wear headscarves.  Our stereotypes are built on one small segment of the Muslim-American community.

Would that I had the time to research this topic and really read up on the fears of the Catholic peril during the great immigrations.  In fact, if anything, the wave of European Catholicism was a vastly greater threat to the status quo in this country than whatever influence Muslim immigrants may have.

Sure, to some extent we can define the pace we incorporate new citizens.  But I think you overstate the amount of influence "we" can have on where our aggregate culture goes.  Besides, judging from some of your other opinions on our fine culture, the culture you defend ceased to exist years ago, if it ever existed at all.

You are right, we are under no obligation to amalgamate cultures.  Given that I believe our culture is superior, I believe culturally they will lose, as generation by generation their children become more and more American in outlook and perspective.  In fact, one day, they may even be able to look out at the next wave of people heading to the promised land, and cry "our culture cannot survive the onslaught!"

Although I would further clarify that point to exclude anyone of any religious or political persuasion that advocates the violent overthrow of this country.

The Royal Families of Europe all ruled by divine right--that is God and Jesus said they were meant to be King or Queen.

Actually, depends on when you caught them. You're grabbing a piece of history and expanding it through time. Kind of a trend, if my addled memory serves me right.

In England, the Queen is still the titular head of the Church of England, and every member of the clergy swears an annual oath of fealty to her individually as head of the Church.

Well, every member of the clergy of the Established Church, at any rate.

Have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire, although most of the various rulers who constituted the government of Empire were hereditary, some were positions directly appointed by the Vatican (e.g., the Prince Bishop of Franconia whose seat was in Wuerzburg, Germany).

Wow, way to truncate, elide, gloss over, and misrepresent one thousand years of history. Heck, your first clause alone does that.

Until Napolean introduced his civil code in the early 19th Century, the legal system was almost completely dominated by the Church in continental Europe.  In England a dual civil and ecclesiastical system developed, although the religious role in the courts was ended much earlier than on the Continent.

Wrong; wrong by omission; and wrong. And, interestingly, wrong by omission on the whole.

The jury system was a direct response to the excesses of the ecclesiastical courts.  The distinction survives to this day in our legal system when we talk about cases that are in "law" (where jury trials are available) and "equity" (where they are not).

The only thing you sorta managed to get right in all that is that there are generally no jury trials at equity.

Even in the U.S., religions have tried to implement their own theocracies.  That is why the Mormons were chased all the way to Utah and some breakaway Mormons still live in isolated little towns in the desert.  And what do you think the whole David Koresh fiasco was about?

(1) Horror!

(2) No it's not;

(2a) Not really.

(3) A splinter of the Seventh Day Adventists that the government decided couldn't be allowed to own firearms.

and the Star Chambers were ecclesiastical courts, the "judges" were generally priests or bishops.  The idea of a jury of one's peers was to take the determination of guilt or innocence away from the religious (and yes King's) authority.  Remember the King was seen as God's designated representative on earth.  As such he held the power of life, death, liberty and property over his subjects.  

Before the development of independent legal systems, aggrieved parties had two choices, take their disputes to the ecclesiastical courts or to a royal tribunal, neither one depended on any kind of due process.  The same applied to criminal matters.  Punishment was arbitrary and depended more on the status of the accused and the victim than the severity of the crime.  (One could argue things haven't changed much).  Granted, merchants and other trades developed ad hoc associations to police themselves that helped immensely as a model in the development of the independent judiciary.

Roman civil law was long dead by the 18th Century.  Modern Civil Law societies in Europe all trace their roots to the Napoleanic Code.  People often think that Napolean merely strengthened the existing Roman tradition and revived it.  This is simply not true but is understandable mistake because Napolean saw himself as creating a new Roman Empire and nominally based his code on the Roman Civil Law.  But the Napoleanic code was an entirely new code that was completely created from scratch and ignored existing codes.  It was the first time since the Roman Empire that Europe had anything resembling a consistent legal system outside of the Church or the whims of the Regent.

As I wrote here, there is too much infestation of intolerant Wahhabism in American mosques and schools, funded predominantly by Saudis.  "Progressive Islam" and more moderate versions such as Sufism are just fine.

I believe that Americans of that day and age vastly overstated the significance of the influx of Catholics to the preservation of our political ideals; what religiously-influenced content they possess is largely consistent with just about any reasonable stripe of Christianity.  And despite the tensions between Protestants and Cathlolics in that age, their common Chistian foundation gave them more of a basis of assimilation and adaptation than either now has with the sort of Muslims who repudiate the very notion of a culture that legitimately refuses to implement sharia, and could lapse into violence or the condoning of violence.  

On another point, it is certainly possible to overstate the amount of influence conscious action can exert over the shape of a culture; but our culture has, as my past comments certainly reflect, been shaped in no small part by decisions that would naver have been taken by majorities of the people at that time, and sometimes even now.  If we could do away with the judicial impulse to refashion culture, we could, as organized citizens of whatever persuasion, have much more influence over the shape of the culture than most of us now possess.

I was mostly commenting on what I saw in the article/photoessay.  But nevertheless, the status of women generally in Muslim countries bothers me.  Headscarves are not the major factor in my feelings.  I do see African-American Muslim women wearing headscarves quite often though, I even saw one in a Burkha or similar attire at the drivers license office.  She sat down to get her picture taken with only her eyes showing.  The guy was like, "Ummm, I'm sorry, you can keep your head covered, but I have to be able to see your face."

All-in-all my impression from this article was a favorable one of the school.  I didn't read the Chicago Tribue? article about the mosque though because it required registration.

I would say that our most problematic stereotypes (some evident in this thread) about Muslims are based on an even smaller and more non-representative subset of the world-wide Muslim community.

BugMeNot.  It's quite useful.

any of the other defenders-by-contrast-with-Christianity want to answer?  What's your read on:

The Universal School makes clear its independence from the controversial institution right next door, the copper-domed Bridgeview mosque. Built a decade before the school, the mosque was started by moderates but then saw a power struggle in which hard-liners came out on top. Among its leaders, said the Chicago Tribune in an investigative report, "are men who have condemned Western culture ... and encouraged members to view society in stark terms: Muslims against the world." Last year a member of the mosque was indicted for allegedly funneling money, before 9/11, to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group.

Paul left out the money shots and excerpted only the first sentence but I don't see how anyone can argue the school in isolation.  Here we have a Tribune story about the mosque.  You'll probably note some things as I did.

1.  Sami al-Arian involved
   
   
2.  Leaders condemned 9/11
   
   
3.  Saudi funds and NAIT control
   
   
4.  The mosque actually drew more membership after the moderates lost control
   
   
5.  The mosque leaders(presumably the radicals who took over) started two schools--Universal and AQSA though not specifically mentioned in the article.

So the protestations of the Universal school aside I think it's pretty clearly affiliated with the controversial mosque in some way however negligible.  I'm sure not mentioning that was an oversight on the part of Time.  Has to be.

My hometown was ruled by the catholic bishop from about 800 to 1800. There was no seperation of Church and State at all. During the reformation, the Protestants were forced to leave.

See http://www.salzburg.gv.at/en/en-index/en-geschichtesbg.htm

about Roman Catholic immigrants for two big reasons:

1. The immigrants did not come here with an Old World political agenda in mind. In fact, most of them were quite sick of the Old World political order and were happy to embrace something new, whether they understood it or not. If the 19th century popes had a problem with democracy, tough: they pretty much ignored Pius' Syllabus of Errors in much the same way today's Catholics are ignoring Humanae Vitae. And of course, the vast majority of them came to these shores for opportunity and a better life. They were not part of some sinister fifth column shipped to North America to convert us all to Romanism.
   
   
2. Culture (usually) trumps politics. But human nature trumps even culture. There are certain commonalities which all human beinsg share no matter what language they speak or what religion they embrace. America appealed (and I believe, still appeals) to those commonalities. Hence the Roman Catholic immigrants gradually became less Roman Catholic (howsoever fervent they remained in their private religious observations) and more American, at least insofar as their participation in the civic life of their new homeland.
   

what about the WTC bombing in 1993?

that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants who come to this country for exactly the same reason.  They are sick of the oppressive regimes and lack of freedom in their own countries and come to this country for a better life for themselves and their families, not as a fifth column to convert us all to Wahabiism.

Forgot about that one.

The Royal Families of Europe all ruled by divine right--that is God and Jesus said they were meant to be King or Queen.

This was actually a fairly late theory that was dreamed up in the 1500s and 1600s to justify the expansion royal power at precisely the time that people were starting to criticize monarchy.

Moreover all through the Middle Ages there were non-monarchial states in Europe, republics like Venice and Florence. The political order of European civilization antedates Christianity by centuries. The Christian church came into existence and grew to maturity in a world with a fairly complex and developed political and legal tradition(s) and it simply acepted these wholesale. In fact, given the other-wroldly emphasis of the religion it had nothing much to say about them at all. By contrast Islam sought to create (and largely did create) a political order completely de novo and founded explicitly on Islamic theology. The Islamic caliph was the the ruler of both state and church. The only thing similar to that in all Christendom is to be found in the Pope's position of civil ruler of the Papal States, and even there the applicable civil laws were derived from the law codes of Justinian and Augustus Caesar, not Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Re: In England, the Queen is still the titular head of the Church of England, and every member of the clergy swears an annual oath of fealty to her individually as head of the Church.

And this is a very unique and unusual situation, due to the specifics of Henry VIII's break with Rome. It is not the case in any other European nation, neither currently, nor at any other era of history. And as a practical matter too no English monarch has played any role in Church affairs since the days of Charles I. Their headship is a purely symbolic title granting no practical power whatsoever.

Until Napolean introduced his civil code in the early 19th Century, the legal system was almost completely dominated by the Church in continental Europe.

The legal system of continental Europe was based quite simply of the law codes of ancient Rome, through multiple recensions, including those by pagan rulers such as Julius and Augustus Caesar as well as by Christians like Justinian. But these law codes were avowedly secular (in the old use of the term, "non-ecclesial", not the current usage where it is a synonym for "atheist"). In northern Europe too the influence of the old (pagan) Germannic and Slavic law codes was also present in civil law, and of course English law was completely based on the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that antedated the coversion of that people to Christianity.

Re: Even in the U.S., religions have tried to implement their own theocracies.

The term "theocracy" as bandied about promiscuously by the Left, has become almost as meaningless as "fascist" or "socialist" (the latter term grossly abused by rightwing demagogues). Examples of true theocracy, where there is no distinction, not even functionally, between church and state authority structures, are very rare in European history.

Re: Before the development of independent legal systems, aggrieved parties had two choices, take their disputes to the ecclesiastical courts or to a royal tribunal, neither one depended on any kind of due process.

Depending on what era we are talking about, there was a third option: local courts maintained by the presiding feudal lord, or perhaps the oligarchial rulers of the city. And in fact the Church courts were not really a chocie as they pertained only to ecclesial matters, or at least matters involving clergy or church property. One simply did not up and decide to head to the bishop's court instead of the local tribunal.

In the later Middel Ages the local feudal courts were done away with as kings everywhere (except in the fractured Holy Roman Empire) advanced the authority of their royal courts instead--and the latter frequently gave better justice than locally biased and influenced feudal courts had.

The English Star Chamber by the way was an extra-legal (and also extra-ecclesial) body, somewhat the equivalent of the Soviet KGB, used to expand the authority of the Tudors, and it was much hated and soon eliminated in the revolutions of the 17th century.

Re: It was the first time since the Roman Empire that Europe had anything resembling a consistent legal system outside of the Church or the whims of the Regent.

Nonsense, and nonsense on stilts! Yes, monarchs often violated the laws to get their way (and sometimes provoked revolts when they did so--e.g., King John of England). But all the kingdoms of Europe had a body of statuatory law inherited from Rome and (early) Byzantium, modified somewhat by decree and custom over the centuries. Its punishments were gruesome (as certainly was the case with Roman law at the height of the Empire!) it was frequently arbitrary and illogical, and clever advocates could bend it to the use of the rich and powerful against the lower classes. But medieval Europe was decidedly not a civilization in utter anarchy, depndent solely on the whims of despots.

IMO,  our culture IS INHERENTLY superior and that is why it has always overcome other cultures in our history.

I'm sure Americans have believed their culture to be superior throughout our country's existence.  Yet, our culture has changed for the better even as it has been confronted with the multitude of other cultures imported with the immigrants which populated America.  Our superiority is inherent only because we have been willing to change, such as by dumping institutionalized racism and granting equality to women.  It's a little arrogant to believe we have reached the pinnacle of civilization, when 50 years from now our grandchildren will see our culture as primitive just as we would view our own culture from 50 years ago.

It is an act of faith in the superiority of our culture to believe that the growing influence of Islam in America will only make us stronger, just as other forces have advanced our culture over hundreds of years.

Re: My hometown was ruled by the catholic bishop from about 800 to 1800.

A number of cities in the old Holy Roman Empire did indeed have episcopal or monastic rulers, which created a fertile ground for church-state conflict (look up "investiture"). Separation of the functions of church and state existed even there, albeit not in anything resembling the American tradition (which was an innovation of the 18th century).  The archbioshop (or whoever) governed his diocese with an ecclesial bureaucracy and according to the canon law of the Church and his secular fief according to relevant secular, civil laws. Indeed, for an example of this we need go no further back than the Republic of Cyprus before 1974 where the Eastern Orthodox archbishop was also the titular head of state. Now I will grant you readily that there were lots and lots of problems in these situations, but the underlying theory and functionality of church and state were still separate entities.

short version of the Holy Roman Empire--obviously 1000 years of history can't be dealt with on a blog but the main point is that I was responding to a post that made the claim that the history of Christianity has always been one of separation of church and state when this is patently ridiculous.  Throughout most of the history of Europe Church and State have been inextricably linked.  The Holy Roman Empire was an extremely complex and long-lived institution.  But its overarching feature was that throughout its history it tied its legitimacy to the Catholic Church.  Sometimes the Church controlled the Empire, sometimes the Empire controlled the Church, sometimes nobody was in charge, sometimes it was at war with itself.  But scattered throughout the Empire were city states and principalities that were directly controlled by the Church through appointed Prelates.  I cited Franconia as an example because I lived there when I worked for the Army (they sent all their protestants to Kitzingen--20 Km down the road).  Apparently Salzburg was another such city.

As for the divine right of kings, what other excuse had ever been given for their right to rule prior to the twentieth century?

Yes it is a horror that religions have attempted to their own little theocracies in the U.S.  Now the Mormons were chased all the way to Utah because people didn't like their bizarre religion and their attempts to take over the government of every town the settled in.  Once they got to Utah they promptly set up a Theocracy and proceeded to extort, rob, and kill settlers heading west.  The early Mormons really weren't very nice people.

You are using a very restrictive meaning of "separation of church and state" .when I originally employed the phrase above I was using it in broad, functional sense, not (definitely not!) in the American constitutional sense at all. What I meant is: there was a state, there was a church. Whatever meddling the two did with each other you can clearly delimit the two from each other. A bishop holds no civil authority by virtue of his bishopric (even if he holds civil authority by virtue of some other office he might hold--a situation thatr could exist in the USA sghoudl said bishop be elected to Congress or appointed to a cabinet post). And the king's privy councillor held no ecclesial authority by virtue of that post (though he might well be a clergyman and hence hold ecclesial authority while wearting a bishop's mitre). Additionally the Church had a body of law called canon law which pertained to ecclesial matters while the state had a body of civil law which pertained to secular matters. Yes, and yes: there was lots of conflict, lost of meddling, lots of dirty deals and the situation was very much a mess. But at the edn pof the day the Church and the State were distinct instiututions with different roles and purposes.

In Islam this was not true. Church and State were one, indivisably and inextricably. And note that I said "was". Islam evovled state institutions beginning with the fall of the Caliphate in the 13th century. But there remains a relict (and quite strong) perception that these institutions are illegitimate and the only valid authority is religious authority.

..there is a middle ground between Wahhabism and Sufism. Sufism may be composed of nice, tolerant people, but to many Muslims, included lil' ol liberal-Muslim-raised me, it's way outside the pale.

The first point, that is.  As to the second, I wouldn't be so hasty to proclaim that human nature always trumps culture, partly because, in the case of American Catholics, changes in observance are most plausibly traced to culture, and largely because human nature never exists except as expressed in and through culture.  And aspects of Catholic tradition which have undergone refinement, such as the ideas expressed in the Syllabus, were always susceptible to such refinement in ways which Humanae Vitae manifestly is not.

I have no reason to contest the broad claim of your comment.  But there are two qualifications which make the Muslim immigration question different from others.  First, within Islam, there is still too great a sense that the radicals and nutjobbers represent something more authentic and "Islamic" than the moderates; hence, the mosque associated somehow with the school profiled in Time GAINS members once the loons have assumed power in it.  Second, and relatedly, the moderates are somewhat cowed; there may be several multiples more of them than there are of the nutbags, but they either lack power or the will to exercise it to marginalize the whackjobs.  The bottom line is that while the majority of Muslims might want nothing to do with the aims of the Wahhabis, that majority is silent (almost).

I will not yield to the notion that discrimination in our immigration policy means, perforce, bigotry or xenophobia or nativism or whatever other term of rhetorical violence is current. I will not. We should discriminate in our immigration policy in a way analogous to how any decent man will discriminate in who he opens the doors of his home to.

Nor will I yield to the notion that our immigration policies must be submitted to the exacting standards of Liberal dogma to be defensible. A sovereign nation is in no way obliged to open its doors to anyone. That is that. It need not explain why person X is "a unique threat"; it need only demonstrate that person X is not a citizen.

I am quite astonished by your statement that "it is necessary to open [our] doors to some from all backgrounds." Have you any sense of where this spectacular declaration will, in its natural logic, lead? How can we even disciminate against known Islamic terrorists, or serial rapists, or lunatics? Are they not included in the quite comprehensive phrase "all backgrounds"? Should we not be exposed to all human diversity?

Of course you are not so foolish. So we must conclude that you do not even believe your own rhetoric.

Again, we have evidence from all over the world of what Samuel Huntington has descibed very aptly as the "bloody borders" of Islam: grim and brutal conflict wherever the religion confronts other cultures. What reason have we to bring this into our own nation?

"We should not stop letting Muslims into the country because of their religion or nationality.  If there is evidence of ties to terrorist groups, then of course stop them.  But that is true of all immigrants, not just Muslims.

Why a Bangladeshi engineer or an Indonesian doctor poses some unique threat to the nation is beyond me."

We should not discriminate based on race or nationality.  We treat individuals as individuals responsible for their own actions.  If one is guilty of terrorist acts or conspiring to do so, they should be held by our government not admitted.  If one is a doctor who wants to live in a more free society where he can succeed and raise his family, it matters not if he is Muslim, arab, south asian, african, Jewish, etc.

And leave your straw man at home: I have never argued that we are required to let in any immigrants.  I have argued that immigration is good and thus we should welcome it.  That it is in our interest to allow those from Muslim and arab backgrounds into our country to experience the rule of law and democratic forces that make America grand.

We have every right to discriminate based on religion.  And we should never do so.

However when culture attempst to bend human nature in dircetions that it does not bend, or to prevent it from flowing in dircetion it is bound to flow, human nature tends to win out. Certainly this was the experience of the "Scientific Socialists". Also, of the Shakers, a religous sect that sought to ban precreation. And of any number of other  attempts to remake mortalkind in some more perfect image.

As for The Syllabus of Errors, I rather suspect that Pius (forget his number; shame on me!) intended it to be taken just as seriously and absolutely as Paul VI intended for Humanae Vitae, and both have failed with the Catholic Faithful, well, simply because are wrong.

late magisterial teaching has qualified its proclamations in such ways as to render Catholic teaching as a whole much more sympathetic to the best elements of modern democracy.  This was one of the signal achievements of JP2.

As to human nature, of course it cannot be bent in certain directions.  My wife grew up in the Soviet Union, so I have not only what I have gleaned from historical study over the years, but firsthand testimony of how communism/central planning/most forms of socialism Don't Work.  But scientific socialism, the social doctrines of the Shakers and other ideas we could likely throw out into the discussion are contrary to human nature (natural law, I would say) in ways that Humanae Vitae really is not.  It is not human nature or natural law that runs counter to HV, but certain natural wants - and these are not equivalent to nature or law.  This much should be obvious, inasmuch as celibacy per se is not contrary to human nature - it is praised in the NT - yet demands much more than HV.  We really have to move beyond that notion that our desires define, at some level, human nature.

Sufism is Way Beyond the Pale?  

That because Humanae Vitae merely restates the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, it by definition has not failed among the Faithful.

Orthodox really shouldn't wander into these debates lightly, friend.

as an Orthodox, I ought not wander into these debates.  But I rather think that the Romans got it right with HV, and I feel a bit ashamed when I meditate on the fact that its teaching was a common Christian inheritance before the 1920s.

And I apologize to you, trevino, and everyone else except Aleks for that. Too much snark, with too little emphasis on the qualification. And too much anti-Catholic sniping out of Aleks. Mea culpa.

Straw man? It was you who said:

And I still believe it is necessary to open your doors to some from all backgrounds so that they experience a country based on law, freedom, and democracy.

My emphasis.

You write, Why a Bangladeshi engineer or an Indonesian doctor poses some unique threat to the nation is beyond me.

They may be a unique threat or they may not. As we all know by now, most Islamic terrorists come from the upper-middle class -- that is, the class that includes engineers and doctors.

But as I said above, it is not necessary to demonstrate that they are a unique threat, and I have never argued that it is.

it is in our interest to allow those from Muslim and Arab backgrounds into our country to experience the rule of law and democratic forces that make America grand.

I know that you believe this sincerely, and I respect you for it. But it is hardly conducive to a fruitful debate on this issue to imply that any disagreement with it is evidence of xenophobia.

We are at war with a faction of a very large and potent religion. The size of that faction is singularly difficult to discern and a matter of no small controversy. But whatever its size, it is very far from being obvious that, in the midst of this strange war, our interest includes mass immigration of members of that religion. We have no reliable means of determining who among them is a member of the enemy faction. We have only very feeble intellectual tools to adjudicate the hard questions of religious conflict. We have emasculated our ability to assimilate alien cultures by casting any preference for one's own people, one's own nation, one's own culture (which preference, on a large social scale, is precisely what produces the pressure to assimilate) in the frebrile light of suspicion.

In short, as C. S. Lewis put it in another context, "in a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function." The organ of assimilation is cultural and national self-assurance -- a thing which in our day has been labelled, for all intents and purposes, bigotry, and tossed into the fires of Liberalism as an ugly feature of the benighted past.

I can't believe this was posted on the front page. How embarassing for the site.

Minor nit: "Salzburg" is both the name of a town and  the name of an Austrian Bundesland which roughly corresponds to the independent state ruled by the Archbishop up to ~ 200 years ago.

I didn't take it as a snark; I just thought that I hadn't waded in lightly, and was a little bemused.  I'm probably one of the few Orthodox who lack an anti-Catholic reflex, and, if some of the idiocies I have heard Orthodox toss about as political ideas consistent with the Faith are reflective of what might happen to Orthodoxy as its presence in the West expands, I'd rather that she just sign on to Catholic social teaching to put a stop to all the nonsense.  Better failure to live up to a catechism that defines these things than not to have one, so that people can belch forth the latest from, say PFAW and pronounce it the Orthodox Way, by contrast to all of those awful evangelicals.  (Yes, I am a little bitter, but I digress.)  

You're a true gentleman.

...aka, the unity of God. Sufis pray to saints and venerate them, build shrines, etc. They are putting humans and objects up to the same level as God.

As an aside, some Islamic thought (and this was mentioned up thread) states that obeying civil law is also violating the concept of tawhid, as law made by man should not be on the same level as law made by God. (This of course is one argument used by Muslims against democracy). Of course, most moderate Muslims wouldn't go for that, although one can see how the concept of tawhid can be a slippery slope that can lead to extremism.

However, even moderate Muslims who actually know their theology still suscribe to "There is no God but God," and see the veneration of saints and objects/shrines to violate that. This is why, if I ever actually end up converting to Christianity (first I have to reconcile the idea of the Trinity/divinity of Jesus with my upbringing re: the tawhid), I just couldn't be Catholic. No offense to the large Catholic community here on RedState.

Finally, although I believe Sufism to be outside the pale, and I stated that many Muslims agree with me, let me clarify that as Islam spread to West Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, Sufism spread with it and really was the vanguard. Many Muslims in those areas who DON'T identify as Sufis actually are taught Sufi views without really realizing it, and those Muslims, until they learn their theology a bit better, would not immediately state that Sufism was outside the pale.

answer I needed.  It sheds light on things, and reminds me of some of the fundamental differences between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and most forms of Protestantism... but that's a different subject altogether.

One very big annoyance I have with the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility is that individual Catholics seems to ivoke it quite will-nilly whenevber they want to end debate on a topic. Officially (I have always understood) the Pope is only infallible when he explicitly say "I am speaking ex cathedra". Was Humanae Vitae issued under that statememnt? Or any other Papal teaching on birth control? If not, then where is the infallibilty coming from?

Apologies, when warranted, ought be issued to everyone on the site whom one may have offended, Thomas. Simply because you disagree with someone is not an excuse to exempt them from statements of contrition. You will note that when, in the heat of debate, I have posted intemperate and offensive words, I have never once given an apology that failed to include every person reading the offense I held myself guilty of no matter what I thought of them and their opinions.

And this discussion (page up?) is about Islam in America. Is there any justification for saying that any American ought not wade into it (lightly or otherwise)?

Your qualified apology has given offense whereas your original words did not!

But search your comments very closely about "the great thing about being Catholic," and similar points. Then ease your way into the comments suggesting that infallible Catholic doctrine is basically irrational (look for references to dead philosophers). Then count the apologies.

Then re-read my comment and ask whether I was addressing Islam or a discussion of Catholic doctrine.

That's about as much as you get out of me on this.

The extent to which a liberal (in the larger sense of the word) society can or should tolerate an illiberal tradition in its midst is a very valid debate for that society to have.

It's an important distinction. The Pope only rarely speaks ex cathedra sui generis. In this case, all the Pope was doing was restating what had been the infallible teaching of the Church for two thousand years -- it's not infallible because he said it, in this case, he said it to restate the infallible.

With all due respect, if you are not a Catholic what difference does it make to you? Why would you get annoyed at what "those Papists" think?

And if you are a Catholic then it may be time for a long session with your parish priest :-)

While that would be a valid debate, this entry doesn't just make me feel slightly uncomfortable, but I get this strong xenophobic impression from it, as if the author wants to throw Muslims out of the country.

Islamists aren't 'the' problem.  They're 'a' problem.  Essentially, the religion-distorted 'I'm right and you're wrong and I'll kill you because of it' type of mentality that some humans are predisposed to is what our country needs to be at war against.  This doesn't mean religion is to blame.  Merely that some fraction of people misuse religion to propagate violence.  If religion didn't exist, these same people would still find some other excuse to commit violence against people.

Ironically, the knee-jerk reaction of blocking all people who are different than ourselves from entering the USA just furthers the stereotypes and the mentality we should be fighting.  It contributes more to the problem than it resolves.

Doverspa said it well above in post #34.  We should block entry people with terrorist ties/sympathies, and we should let in the people who are genuinely trying to make a better life for themselves.  Our country benefits from immigration and a variety of cultures.   Otherwise we'd all be drinking tea and eating crumpets every day.  Sure its a difficult thing to ascertain someone's 'true' intent, but the whole founding of this country is based upon conquering difficult challenges --- not by avoiding them.

First, would it not be, at a minimum, a promising beginning to place certain mosques - we do already, I believe, have a decent conception as to which of them are controlled by, or sympathetic to, radicals - under surveillance, with the intent of identifying those who are involved in suspicious activities and advocacy, to the end that they may be expelled from the country?  In other words, might we not have the means to identify many of those who are truly among the enemy?

Second, if we have indeed so gelded our culture as to recoil with horror at the mere thought of asserting the primacy of its values over those of men who wish our deaths, is it not somewhat academic to discuss even modest measures, let alone the cessation of all Islamic immigration?

I have just come back to this post (or is it a thread?) having seen and contributed to it last night.  I do appreciate the respectful tone and give and take of the conversation herein.

I have to acknowledge that many posters (unlike myself) don't see the threat from Islamic immigration--to our culture and overall security--that Paul Cella does.  The idea seems to be that once moslem immigrants are exposed to our education and political system, they will, like other groups before them, assimile into the American Culture.  It sounds to me more like a wish that this will occur, rather than an assessment of the evidence so far.

I just finished reading Bat Yeor's book "Eurabia", which reviews, among other things, the influence of islamic immigration to Europe over the past 30 years.  It is not a pretty picture.  There is dhimmitude, jihad, and a gradual surrender of the dominant Christian and post-Christian culture to the islamic influence.  Assimilation into the various European national cultures appears minimal.  So the question is: why would the American experience of islamic immigration be all that different?   As many posters have pointed out, it may indeed be more successful because Anerica is better at bringing in and making citizens out of immigrants than European countries.  But, then again, our experience could follow the negative European trends.

As Paul points out, we are not obligated to take in immigrants from everywhere in the world.  We are a sovereign county and so can decide, through our elected officials, who we want to accept as immigrants.   All of the discussion of previous immigration into the US, zenophobia, etc. is interesting and maybe even true (I am no expert), but I don't see how it necesarily applies to the current islamic immigration.

This is an urgent issue and it must be debated and discussed.

It applies because the past umpteen times these arguments have been made about a group of immigrants, they have been wrong.  Catholics.  Italians.  Chinese.  Irish.  Japanese.  And now Mexicans and Muslims.  They are wrong again.  I just hope we don't have to go through another round of internment camps to figure that out.

Doverspa,

Who said anything about Mexicans?

Question for you:  If an individual was determined to be a radical islamist and living in the US--that is believed in violent jihad, establishing Sharia law, etc.--do you think our laws should allow us to deport that indivudual?

..I'm staying out of the controversial bits of this thread. Done it way too many times.

And with all due respect I fail to see why anything I said on this thread should be regarded as derogatory by Catholics. I noted several facts which I think are beyond dispute:

1. In the 19th century many Americans had a fear of Catholics, especially Catholic immigrants.
   
   
2. The Church itself in that era espoused a position on political questions that was at considerable variance from the philosophical foundations of the American republic.
   
   
3. Catholic immigrants assimilated to American ways, inclduing Amnerican politics.
   
   
4. This process in turn influenced the Church at the highest levels to rethink its political philosophy, and ultimately to reconcile itself to democracy and religious pluralism, and indeed, to become itself a champion of human rights.
   

Then I offered an opinion: that this experience might (emphasis on "might") be a template for the evolution of Islam.

Is there anything even remotely derogatory or insulting in this? Or perhaps it is my suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church ever changed its mind about anything is being met with horror by those who would claim that the Church NEVER makes a mistake or changes its teaching?

When Christians speak of God's Law they mean moral law--something that it is incumbent on individuals to follow, but which is not meant to be enforced by the state. (We have some Christian sects which feel otherwise,e.g., the favorite liberal boogeyman, the Reconstructionists,  but they are extremists and very much beyond the pale.)* Civil law simply is whatever it is--it may be good or bad, certainly, but it is not religiously based and under "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and other Biblical adminishments aout civil authorit ywe understand that law-making is indeed one of "Caesar's" jobs, which in the modern world, means the job oif the whole body politic. As I pointed out below Christianity has never had a shari'a; the laws of the old Roman Empire simply continued onward, inbformed by Christianity, but not transmuted in any way.

The crucial question here would be, Can Islam transform it's Law into a concept of private moral law and allow that civil law would be independent of it? If not, I don't see how Islam and republican (small "r") government can ever coexist honestly.

* There is also a quarrel as to what God's Law consists of in Christianity. Generally, save by a few aberrant sects, the old Law of Moses is rejected. But there is a certain attachment to the Ten Commandments, and of course the precepts of Jesus (which cannot really be seen as Laws as they lack all specificity) of the Godlen Rule and the Two Commdaments of loving God and loving other people.

that he wishes to expel all Muslims from the country (as opposed to just those who engage in terrorist activities, including the preaching terrorist forms of hate)? He is definitely a hardliner of immigration questions, but I'm not sure he's ever argued for wholesale deportations of people who are legal and law-abiding  residents (let alone citizens!) of this country.

In what sense is there dhimmitude in Europe? Certainly not in the public legal statutes! Moreover the old dhimmi laws were repealed in Islam itself back in the 18th century (although to be sure this was what sparked the rise of Wahhabi fundamentalism).

If we go through "another round of internment camps," it will be because we lacked the prudence and nerve to protect ourselves by the simple application of our own duly-enacted laws.

You write as if September 11 never happened. "These arguments" have been made about every group of immigrants, eh? Most of us would be rather puzzled to find that sober men once worried of Popish Italian plots to incinerate office workers; of Chinese conspiracies to demolish national monuments; of the danger that the ancient feud between Hinduism and Christianity might spill over onto these shores.

It is precisely what differentiates my arguments here from the older arguments against immigration that you will not confront. (1) The unique and uncomfortable history of war between Islam and Christendom. (2) The unprecedented threat posed by the resumption of this war here in America.

It is increasingly difficult to take your position seriously when you insist on ignoring these factors and subsuming the whole argument into an tired old rhetorical framework that does not apply.

. . . called for the deportation of Muslims here illegally. I have never called for extra-legal action against legal residents, much less citizens.

And that's a slur, ma'am.

Re: "These arguments" have been made about every group of immigrants, eh? Most of us would be rather puzzled to find that sober men once worried of Popish Italian plots to incinerate office workers

In the 17th century there were certainly people who worried about Roman Catholic plots to incinerate the English Houses of Parliament and the entire government with them, based on a real incident that very nearly had that result. This led unfortunately to false allegations of similar plotting that resulted in innocent people sent to the gallows.

You've been waiting for months to title a comment "Popish Plots."

{grin}

or rather an alleged "Popish Plot". Some guy in 17th century England made it up out of thin air, but be was widely believed because people were so paranoid about Catholics. Innocent people were imprisoned and executed as a result.

Anyway, let's hope that is not a template for our future dealings with American Muslims!

Well I am glad to hear that the old dhimmi laws were repealed in the 18th century, and that the minority, non-moslem communities in moslem countries are treated with respect as equals.  Like the Copts in Egypt or the Christians in Pakistan or the Jews in .....

The accompanying Time article does tell us that, "The Universal School makes clear its independence from the controversial institution right next door, the copper-domed Bridgeview mosque"; but the reader will search in vain for any evidence to support this assertion and plenty to gainsay it.

In the linked article I didn't see an indication that the school was controlled by the next door mosque.  Maybe that was because the free link didn't show the entire article. Or I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the MSM omitted some evidence that the school was controlled by terrorism justifiying nuts.

But when you go implying that someone is is in league with terrorist apologists, I think you bear the burden of citing some specific evidence.

Saying the article doesn't have any evidence to disprove they're run by the radical mosgue doesn't cut it. Most of us can't cite any evidence that we're not al-quaeda terrorists, beyond the fact that there's no evidence that we are.

You say the article has plenty [of evidence] to gainsay the school's statements dissociating themselves from the militant mosque.  How about quoting some of it, so people can evaluate your judgement of what constitutes plenty of evidence?

To tell the truth, I think it's possible the school is associated with the militant mosque. I think it's a serious problem that some Islamic schools imply terrorism is justified, and maybe this is one of those schools.  But before you go slinging such a volatile innuendo, common decency requires that you explicitly cite some specific evidence.

The closest thing I could find resembling your so called "evidence" was some whining about the same kind of multiculturalist minority victim drivel that you'd hear at any politically correct public school, along with other favorable attitudes about America.

I don't know, and could be convinced.  Maybe you can show that Time left out evidence that the school's governing board are the same people who control the radical mosque.  But just making fun of the sartorial tastes of a bunch of Hasidic Jews running around in yarmulkes and long black coats, with the girls not allowed to show their hair or the skin on their arms, doesn't constitute evidence of anti-Americanism.

The xenophobic reaction to Mexican immigrants is often argued by the same people who fear every Muslim.

If an individual is determined to have done anything illegal, we should arrest them.  If they have finances terrorist operations, conspired with terrorist groups, or assisted terrorists in coming to America or in any other way.  But I don't agree with hate crimes nor any other crime for a belief.  If one wants to vote for Shari'a they have the right just as I vote my conscience.  We don't deport neo-nazis for their beliefs.  We should treat extremist Islamics the same.

***This presumes they are here legally.  If they are here illegally, then they should be ushered out regardless of their views.

Catholics were taking over the government with their nefarious plans according to many.  Japanese were a big enough threat that we had to round them up and put them in camps.  And those were groups based on race or nationality, not religion.

(1) I do not believe war between Islam and Christianity is unavoidable.  And I think places like America are the best suited for members of the two religions to live side-by-side because of our freedom of religion.  I also do not believe America is "Christendom" as we are a secular state that respects freedom of religion.

(2) Thus, I don't see any real evidence that law abiding Indonesian-Muslim or Senegalese-Muslim Americans should be deported or denied entry due to their religion.

I do believe that we should not discriminate based on religion.  We should treat each individual as responsible for his/her actions.  If an individual is dangerous (and a disproportionate amount of arab Muslims are), then we deny entry.

And this "tired old rhetorical framework" is just pointing out that those who predict America falling apart because a new type of person is coming to the country have been wrong in every case before.  I expect they are wrong again.

Because I'm somewhere between the two of you on this issue, but this:

Thus, I don't see any real evidence that law abiding Indonesian-Muslim or Senegalese-Muslim Americans should be deported

Is not Paul's position, as he's made clear numerous times.

However poorly minorities are treated in today's Arab world, this is not a case of Dhimmitude. The Dhimmi laws are as dead as slavery is in this country (with the exception that the Taliban did revive them in Afghanistan).

The Bund may have had it easy compared to some.

The Mormons, the Jews, the American Indians, all were subject to pretty harsh treatment before being accepted into american society.  Islam shares many traits with Judaism with regard to religious practice and language.  It may take not only a program of repression against Wahhabism, it may also take the birth of a "Reformed Islam" that worships or at least teaches religion and communicates to its congregation in English.

Hanafi terrorists took over three DC government buildings in March of 1977.

US flagged common carriers, like TWA, PanAm, etc have been continuous Islamic terror targets since 1967.

Macauley might have mentioned that if he thought it were at all true.

When Lord Jefferies was Chief Magistrate he was no prelate.  Star Chamber was not a religious court at all under the Stewarts.

You might consider that if the King is of one religion and the Parliament is of another and the Church of England is neither that to equate civil and religious courts is beyond absurd.

Remember the King was seen as God's designated representative on earth.  As such he held the power of life, death, liberty and property over his subjects.

The English kings lost the power to condemn men to death some great time ago-- 1215? Magna Carta?

Civil and Religious courts were also seperated.

Modern Civil Law societies in Europe all trace their roots to the Napoleanic Code.

Except of course the little country in the northwest that populated America.

It was the first time since the Roman Empire that Europe had anything resembling a consistent legal system outside of the Church or the whims of the Regent.

This is true, but not the way you mean it.

Consistent from Ebro to Vistula, yes, new from Napoleon.

Consistent from year to year, throughout the whole country*, yes, but that was true before Napoleon.

*Of course France was not a nation much before Napoleon, it was after all the King of the French not the King of France for sometime.  As far as France, Napoleon's code regularized the law across France, but since France didn't have a nationally integrated society before the Revolution that wasn't too belated.  So when the civil law was regularized through a "whole country", we mean something like all of Normandy or all of Brittany

Holland, as an example, had established civil law well before then, and no religious courts of any kind.  

I think your timeline of Europe has a couple of pages stuck together.

we agree on this much: If they are here illegally, then they should be ushered out regardless of their views.

What "harsh treatment" did the Jews receive in America? They may have been the victims of some unpleasant rudeness and they may have been blackballed from Waspy country clubs and colleges, but to compare that to slavery or slaughter is silly.

oh?

"Thus, I don't see any real evidence that law abiding Indonesian-Muslim or Senegalese-Muslim Americans should be... denied entry" is his position.  I see no evidence that either should be U.S. policy.  And I continue to believe we should not discriminate based on religion which is fundamentally what Paul is arguing.

And even then, what Paul objects to is an illiberal tradition within a classically liberal country. Not to Muslims per se; but it would be so in effect. It's a worthwhile debate to have -- and as a Catholic, I think it was a perfectly worthwhile debate to have in the 1840s, too. It would have been doubly important to have it if Catholics were threatening bombing runs on New York and the District of Columbia (while Congress was in session).

Two closing points:

I know you and Paul don't see eye to eye on this. And I know this goes to core principles for you. But you're not winning allies by deliberately misconstruing what he said. Paul explicitly has denied wanting to deport Muslims here legally -- citizen or legal immigrant. It's an aspersion on him to say he's in favor of deporting his fellow citizens based on their religious beliefs. You're significantly better than that.

Like I said, I'm between the two of you on this. I'm out of this discussion.

Don't mean to split hairs on this issue, and I am not sure if this post is too old to comment on, but: Dovespa said:

"We should treat each individual as responsible for his/her actions.  If an individual is dangerous (and a disproportionate amount of arab Muslims are), then we deny entry."

I would say:

1.  Note that even you are saying that a disproporionate amount of Muslim arabs are dangerous.  If that is true, and we are in agreement on this, then a rational immigration policy would more carefully scrutinize members of that group coming into the country--and not just as immigrants, but on any kind of visa.
   
2.  You also say that we should check them out (presumably run some kind of security check) before they come in. A security check (if it were actually done) might only reveal criminal history.  So if the individual seeking entry is a radical islamist--believes in violent jihad, establishing sharia law, etc.-- but never got arrested, we would still let them in.  Also we are assuming that the country of origin has uniform crime reporting and record keeping.  For example, if someone in a rural area of Pakistan got arrested for radical islamist activity, that the central crime statistic bureau in Islamabad would have this on record.  Unlikely.

Also we are assuming that the country of origin has uniform crime reporting and record keeping.

Bingo. There have been several attempts to create databases that might be used to 'check out' would-be entrants from those countries. All those efforts run into that problem. You have guys for whom the closest thing to an address is "the shack by the river, next to the big tree." All but a few of them have multiple names. Their birthdate is not a constant; it's a variable that changes from year to year depending on the phase of the Moon on New Years Day in their calendar. This is a hard problem.

Or how about this upon entry to the US immigration or visa station?  Interview questions:

Do you think that the 911 Terrorists did the right thing?  If they answer "yes" or "unsure" instead of "no", then reject.

Or, do you think that violent Jihad (as in suicide bombing of civilians)  is an acceptable tactic in Israel, or Kashmir, or Chechnya, or Bagdad or anywhere,? If "yes", then reject.

Do you think that the Sharia law should apply anywhere?  If "yes" then reject.

if we get over our superstition about the unspeakable horror of the least bit of discrimination. The purpose of our immigration policy -- especially in the context of the war -- is to protect and advance our national interest, not to demonstrate our submission to Liberal totems.