Although this is not the mosque in the article, "As Houston Islamic Center burns, firefighter posts "Let it burn - Block the fire hydrant" , it illustrates what is on much of conservative America's mind - blind hatred to others who are not like them. It's not just Islam - Sikhs are being caught up in the hatred of the ignorant, as noted in this article. Even my father lumps Sikhs in with Muslims, calling them all "Towel Heads", without the slightest understanding that Sikhs are often at odds with Muslims because of their religion and practice of it.
This is the kind of event that disgusts me. There is nothing wrong with fearing the unknown. I fear the potential of having an unassimilated ethnic group demanding rights they have in other countries that no ethnic group should have in ours. But giving into that fear is something else. The quickest way to radicalize the Muslims in the United States is to treat them as third class citizens.
There are legitimate fears - Americans do not want to see the United States become like Europe. We successfully absorbed millions of people from around the world in simpler times - and virtually every major group has been successfully brought into the mainstream. People coming here wanted to become Americans and leave the old world behind. Current European immigrants want to bring the old country (and culture) with them - and this poses a dilemma for today's Americans: Will newcomers (in any large number) from truly foreign cultures assimilate successfully?
I'm concerned with the growth of Islam in the United States. It's because I see Saudi Arabia funding many of the prison chaplains, spreading the most conservative practice of Islam in the world. I'm afraid that their barbaric culture (vs. the barbaric culture we're already familiar with) will cause us problems if its members grow too large in our society.
- - - - - -
However, I also fear radical Christianity. We've identified the San Bernardino shootings as terrorist activity. But what about the bombing of Abortion Clinics, as well as the assassination of doctors who have practiced there. Many of the same people who say abortion is wrong often try to impose their moral values on the rest of us by also getting in the way of women having a full range of safe and legal contraception options. (The "Hobby Lobby" case comes to mind here.) So I am concerned for the women who do not have convenient access to safe and legal medical procedures to keep a baby healthy while it's in the womb, as well as access to safe and legal medical procedures for those women (for whatever reasons) need to abort the fetuses inside them.
Once a woman's right to control her own body is taken away by social conservatives, what is next? We've already seen legislators pander to the religious right by saying that church attendance should be made mandatory. How would Atheists fare? Then, I'd bet that religious purity zealots would go after "social undesirables" such as Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Transgender people. And then, who would be next to suffer in the potential religious purges?
- - - - - -
If you don't think anything like this could happen here, you haven't been paying attention to history. Politicians will lie to the people. But sometimes, they get caught up in their lies, and have to act in disgusting ways. For example, we've seen Japanese Americans herded up into prison camps - only because of their ancestry. Was this done to people of either German or Italian ancestry? No. But we feared the Japanese, and "needed" to control the "Japanese" in our midst in the most brutal and inhumane way possible. (And Donald Trump) is using this as a model of what we should do to Muslims living in America.
After seeing pictures of Jews wearing Yellow Stars in Germany, it sickens me to see this crap being proposed here. And I feel very sorry that the most "conservative" of Christians are making the same mistake Germany made in the 1930's. Instead, I'd like to see America address the problems brought up in this video clip from the HBO series, The Newsroom. Only then, can America be great again (no help from Trump.)
In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS. One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature. The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries. The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground. In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.
Normally, I'd agree with The Economist. But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something. Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump. There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.
The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders. He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on. Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates. (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)
Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs. Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS. It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people. And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do." So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.
There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe. In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring. No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.
A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It. One review of this book notes:
Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.
Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."
Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion
Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.
...
With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.
Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.
How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"
...
In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".
Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.
Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct. Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress. (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)
So we go back to Trump's candidacy. What do we do about it? For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party. (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.
Am I sure of this? No. But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....
The above picture is from the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - a former church, a former mosque, and now a museum. Istanbul (nee Constantinople) has been at the crossroads of Islam and Christianity for generations, as well as being the crossroads of East and West. And this building reflects the theme of today's post - Islamists vs. Christianists - which group is worse?
- - - - - -
In the past few days, our President has noted the human rights abuses committed by Christians in the past, as well as mentioning that the Crusades were not as holy as we'd like to paint them in the West. Christianists were up in arms, stating that it was Islam that struck the first blow, posting memes across social media to paint Christianity in a defensive light.
At the same time, others have been noting the human rights abuses committed by Muslims in the past (as well as most recent past), mentioning that the expansion of Islam had been one of military conquest - something that many Muslims hated to discuss, as they paint their religion as a peaceful one - ignoring their own history.
As I see it, both sides have committed great evils in the names of their faiths, and have blind spots regarding the history of their faiths. Is there any comparison possible without getting either side angry? I doubt it. Those who need absolute certainty that their faith is correct will try to destroy any evidence, any counter opinion that may suggest that their religion is wrong.
- - - - - -
What we're seeing is a clash of civilizations. It's not the mainstream Christians and Muslims who have learned to live together that are clashing. Instead, it is those groups of people who want to turn back the clock a few hundred years to a time where there was nothing that could pose a challenge to their orthodoxy. And these people ARE the problem.
There is a large number of Muslims who consider any depiction of "the Prophet" to be heresy worth killing someone for. Why? If the word of God that was presented to him is that correct, then wouldn't God take care of justice? Who are they to determine what justice is, when it is only tradition that is responsible for a prohibition against depicting "the Prophet" in any way? Christians have their hot buttons too. I remember a few years back when someone from Africa (if I recall correctly) painted a Madonna like figure with media made from Elephant dung. And the exhibition of this work set off a maelstrom of protests. Can any one person truly harm God if that God is all powerful?
Most modern people, Christian, Jew, and Muslim would look the other way if something were exhibited that offended us. Why doesn't everyone do this? As I see it, people who are alienated from modern society AND who have taken solace in religion need to believe in an "Old Testament-like God" who is ruthless in his punishments, draconian in his justice, and is as dysfunctional as they are. When events do not exhibit the "justice" they crave, they tale law into their own hands, execute that "justice", then say that they were only following God's will. But who are they to say exactly what God's will is? I don't see God coming down from on high to tell me (or others) what his will is. Who are these people to claim it?
- - - - - -
It's about time that the moderates of all faiths take back control of dogma from the extremists, and push the extremists out of civilized society. In the Mid-East, it may involve the use of heavy duty armaments, while in "civilized" nations it may involve curtailing certain rights - with a goal of forcing the extremists to move elsewhere. I have no solutions. I am proposing some thought experiments, as if we don't come up with ideas soon, the plague infecting the "Old World" may metastasize and infect the "New World" in ways we can't handle....
