prescriptions for the unthinking.

One more time, Islam is a cult, brutish, violent and demeaning. To pretend otherwise is stupidity.

A preference for living in a fictitious world of 'if only and when' is common to many all over the world. That includes the millions who tune in to soap operas on the TV; and yes, cartoons; and then it moves into the endless conspiracy theories about any and everything. And then, into the apocalyptic futures of When X-conquers The World. This will never change; it's always a percentage of human cognition, which has the capacity to imagine - a property not found in other species.

It's only alarming when the fictitious world view crosses a threshold of the population and becomes a dominant perception. That's when a society moves into a pathological mode - on the road to its demise (eg Nazi fascism). Yes, that demise may be violent and involve many others - but- it's a demise.

My point is only that a preference for a fictitious world is always going to exist in our species because of our beneficial capacity for imagination (eg we can imagine flight and build an airplane). As long as it's a minimal population percentage - there is no problem.

At the moment, the West is fighting back against the Islamic fictions. The UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany - and the US - reject the imposition of a fundamentalist fictitious world over reality. But, the rejection, the critique, the dissent - has to be constant.

Did the federal Liberal government fund any of these french sites in their attempt support the french language across the world and the Francophonie conference?

by Liz Fedor in the Star Tribune:

More than a thousand Somalis gathered in Minneapolis on Saturday to call for Ethiopian troops to withdraw immediately from Somalia.

Their protest capped a week in which transitional government troops retook Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, with the backing of Ethiopian infantrymen.

The U.S. government "gave the green light" to Ethiopia to work in concert with the transitional federal government in Somalia, and that action was "totally wrong," said Hassan Mohamud.

He is the president of the Somali Institute for Peace and Justice in Minneapolis, which organized Saturday's rally.

"We ask the president of the United States, Mr. Bush, and his administration to stop supporting the terrorists. Ethiopian troops are terrorists," Mohamud said to a cheering crowd.

Somali men, women and children gathered Saturday morning in Peavey Park in Minneapolis, and they carried an array of signs. Some said "No more war" and "Islam is the solution."

Why is this allowed? Where is the counter protest, including the so-called moderates? And why are our western governments allowing an increasing number of these savage enemies into our countries?

I wonder how many innocent lives will have to be lost in order to end Muslim immigration and deport the Islamofascists already here.

ET,

All societies have myths and mythologies. Some are violent mythos that are used to drive the society.

Bernard Lewis pointed out that the fundamental issue with Islam is that it is a triumphalist religon. This means if you read the story most of it is written about the the rise of the religon as its empire expands, by sword.

So there are two porblems. If you are a literalist ytou want to recreate. The second is the one that causes cognitive dissonance. If you read the Koran you would expect an islamic society to be at the head of the class but when you look around you find most are at best in the middle of the pack as societies. If you are a literalist this represents a real problem.

The need to move beyond literal interpretations to symbolic representations is important.

So it isnt that Islamic societies have myths, it is that the myths that they tell themselves are self destructive when taken literally. While many of these societies live under oppressive rule they have nobody to blame but outsiders, when it is the smaller elite that need to be blamed.

Imagine of Soviet citizens continued to blame outsiders for their plight rather than recognizing that the problem was their system and their leaders. North Korea is what happens when the people continue to fail to blame the leadership versus "outsiders".

So you are correct these societies or the heads of these societies continue to lie to the populace, puppet shows while the populace sit in the cave watching shadows.

Or as one muslim critic was of extreme islam, Sharia is an excuse for dictatorship.

Religious extremism in all its' wonderous costumes has blinding hate-filled intolerance for everyone outside the membership and almost total control of those with membership.

The religous leadership can communicate anything and it will be snapped up unquestionably by the most zealous members like drooling Pavlovian pooches listening to a bell...so long as one rule is followed: that bad things in the world ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. Less zealous members that may have questions remain quietly obedient and anonymous to not endanger their rank in the group and avoid punishment (i.e. Stockholm Syndrome).

French muslims appear to have a pretty fertile area to train more Pavlovian pooches for their brand of extremism...and like the Sicilian Mafia there's only one way the muslim leadership prefers to let members leave.

I believe France will be on the road to curing their cancerous internal violence problem when they learn how to handle the extremist muslim leadership both inside and outside their country.

Irwin Daisy - the reason 'it' is allowed is because we are a free and democratic society, and freedom of opinion is an important right.

As for the counter-voice, it is expressed within Somalia, where many of the Somali support the Ethiopian troops freeing them from a repressive Islamism.

Stephen - I'm not sure of your point. I am not talking of myths or the identity-tales of a group. I am talking of the capacity to imagine, a property of our species, which operates in daily life outside of the traditional stories. This psychological capacity means that a human being can set up various schemes and plans and goals for the future. It has nothing to do with the gov't lying to the population; these schemes can be outlined by a gov't and also by an individual and group. My point is only that these schemes are imaginary, can be constructive or destructive, and are only an issue of concern when their membership reaches a critical threshold in the population.

I think that the basic problem in Islam as a religion is that its axioms are assumed to be the 'word of god' and beyond dissent and debate. The basic problem in Islam as a mode of life is that it is functional only in an 8th century tribal mode. Since this mode is also defined as dictated by religion, it is beyond critique and change.

Irwin:

its called freedom. You might not like what they say but its allowed. I dont like what they say either but i dont mind them saying it.

ET and Colin,

Islam is a political ideology with it's own constitution and law. Its particularly pernicious and more deadly than Naziism or communism because it has the added benefit of being a religion. To that end, the Muslim objective is to gain rule over the world by whatever means necessary. Including disinformation/dissimulitude (taqiyya), political activisim, terrorism and outright war.

Of course we live in a democracy, with all the freedoms that come along with it. However, when those freedoms are abused as it regularly is by the organised followers of Mohammad, we have a problem. If the ummah (the alien nation of Islam in our midst), has the dedicated will and is gathering the means to undermine and ultimately overthrow our constitution and elected governments, is that not called treason?

I'm not saying that the Somali's protesting the overthrow of the Sharia courts is treason. However, it is one more brick in the alien and undemocratic world the Islamists are attempting to foist on us all.

When congressman, Keith Ellison is sworn in on the Quran, what do you think that means? Will his first allegiance be to uphold the constitution of the US, or the constitution of Islam? If you know anything about Islam you'll know the answer to that question. He does.

ET,

I totally agree with your excellent commentary. I only wish to add that there are extremist branches I know personally within Christianity that suffer the same "'word of god' and beyond dissent and debate" problem you discuss. This is a problem within many of the world's religions, only that Islam apparently has the built-in capacity for the most virulent forms of extremism.

Our freedom allows extremism to exist but the problem is that the leaders of extremist movements seek to subvert and extinguish that very freedom to secure and increase their power and wealth.

The Toronto Sun has a very good lead editorial today about the very real possibility of the West losing. The major culprit? The myth of "moral equivalence".

This myth handicaps the West at every turn in our death struggle with a vicious enemy that wills our destruction, while being totally free--smart them!--of this particular, destructive myth.

So, while I support freedom of expression--no longer allowed in the PC West, unless one's a lefty--irwin daisy has a point: at what point does freedom of expression cross the line to treasonous acts? (Think of some of the pro-Hamas slogans at the Montreal march and in London.)

It seems to me that, as well as entertaining itself to death, the West is sleepwalking towards the abyss.

Happy New Year!

Wouldn't it be better to have this institute for peace and justice in Somalia rather than the USA. Why don't all those idiots go home and do their complaining and maybe make a difference. They are in the USA, so quit worrying about Somalia, and expecting the USA to solve your problems. Aren't these the same types that complain when the US does become involved. Same goes for all muslims in the USA and Canada. Quit your bitching and go home. Read Lorrie Goldsteins article in the Sun today, pointing out all the failures of the liberal government re kyoto. Dions supposedly great announcement at the conference is all bull.
It is a NON BINDING agreement that maybe there will be future talks. Funny how the msm refused to write about the liberals failures since 1998, and then complain Harper hasn't solved all the problems in less than a year. After signing kyoto is 1998, Chretain didn't ratify it till 2004. That is great action. Kyoto is a myth, and should be a series on Myth Busters.

Irwin: I have to support your hypothesis. It is treason. Freedom of speech "does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theatre". I think that well worn principle applies in our present situation. If in this case organizers could get a thousand demonstrators out in the streets, one must realise that the forces opposing western civilization in that community must be many times that. An exercise such as this also brings out the Left Nutbars in droves (a la Hanoi Jane); which is what it is designed to do. It is also designed to intimidate the rest of us.
The west is facing a new threat from within and our governments are too conditioned by Political Correctness to act to oppose it.

"The major culprit? The myth of "moral equivalence"."

As practiced by Martin B:

"I only wish to add that there are extremist branches I know personally within Christianity that suffer the same "'word of god' and beyond dissent and debate" problem you discuss."

And here we go again. Who are these "extremist" branches? People like Timothy McVeigh? - who never left a note saying he did what he did for any Christian organisation, or God for that matter, and on top of that, no Christian group took credit? Or, perhaps it's the abortion clinic bombers, who years ago killed, I dunno, 2 or 3 people - on behalf of who? Or there's those other Christian extremists...umm...it'll come to me...let me think...oh yeah, the IRA...See! Christian extremists everywhere. Next they'll be cutting off innocent school girls heads...and making us pray 5 times a day...and stoning us to death for adultry...and and calling us infidels!

Hey Martin B. I know evolution theory extremists and climate change extremists who "suffer the same "'word of god' and beyond dissent and debate" problem you discuss."

There seems to be an equivalent boogeyman under every dogma. All lopping off heads. Or they could be. If they wanted to.

Wake up.

Irwin Daisy - I'll disagree. I think that Islamism is similar to Nazi fascism and communism, both in its utopian ideology and its rejection of dissent and critique. Communism and Nazi fascism operated also as a religion, ie, in assuming that their basic axioms were beyond dispute.

I actually think that Islamism is NOT as pernicious as the other two. All are similar in that they are utopian ideologies, based around emotion rather than reason, and operating within an apocalyptic scenario that insists that progress to this utopia requires violence. They are all similar.

I actually think that Islamic fascism is weaker than the other two. There are several reasons for this. First, like them, it rejects the rights and activities of the individual. It is focused around a group mindset. This means that it rejects the use of reason in its commitment to the future utopia. BUT - communism and Nazi fascism didn't reject all reason; they didn't reject science. Both regimes are quite capable of scientific research and development; both regimes are capable of industrial development.

Islamism, on the other hand, rejects any and all reason. You aren't supposed to think. It rejects science! It has no capacity to develop any technologies, any medicine, any..anything. It is utterly dependent on the West. The ME states can purchase the results of science by oil. Africa can't.

And, the other severe weakness in Islamism is that it is focused, not on life and enabling life, but on death. Good things only happen when you die. Life is, frankly, to an Islamist, not worth living. I consider this a weakness in the ability of any state that moves into Islamic fundamentalism. It can't enable the population to live.

So-if you look at Islamism as a system in which a society structures itself - to enable itself to live and continue into the future - Islamism has these fatal flaws inside it. It can't develop adaptive technologies to support and maintain its population; and, it rejects life. Those are flaws and mean that it can't operate within an industrial world.

Islamism is a 'blip' in history, an explosive disease that has emerged in the ME as it moves, with difficulty, from tribalism into a civic mode of governance. It's a 'blip' because it is a dysfunctional mode in an industrial economy; it can't operate within industrialism. It will collapse in itself. But, the West has to confront it and enable and promote this collapse.

Ultimately all these "isms" fear freedom and with it the right to think and question. These groups can not allow you to probe their dogma as it exposes their weaknesses and can cause you to reject them. In the case of Islam always praying and repeating the Koran reinforces through mindless repetition their dictates.

Irwin Daisy, the Jehovah Witnesses are a religious group linked to Christianity that represent an extremist branch that allows no dissent or debate. My former secretary was a member and I have never experienced such blind acceptance of untruths before. An example would be in marriage where she would say we are fully equal but when I responded with who makes the final decisions, well he does. Well if he makes the decision how can you be equal, blank stare.

ET I hope the West remains strong and resolute and maybe we might have the time to allow Islam to collapse.

Reading the factual Bio of Mohammed, he comes off as someone who is either schizophrenic and sociopathic or has a massive bipolar swing between contemplation and unbridaled violence.

If fundamentalism adheres rigidly without interpretations to the sections of his teachings when he's under psycological attack (Mohammed said/believed he was possesed occasionally when he did bad things) no wonder fundamentalist islam is sociopathic and prone to violence.

ET,

I think your idea is based on a non sequitur:

"Communism and Nazi fascism operated also as a religion, ie, in assuming that their basic axioms were beyond dispute."

This is not the same as believing that "there is no true God but God and Mohammad is the messenger." That the Quran is the uncreated word of God; the belief in an afterlife and a reward for doing Allah's will. And all the other rituals and tenets of their belief system established over a 1500 year history.

Whereas Godless/Theosophist Naziism and Atheist Communism were established on the Utopian now - Islam is established on the utopian now and hereafter.

Islam is also universally accepted and accredited as one of the 'three great religions', whereas Naziism and Communism were not.

Having the benefit of being an established and accepted religion, like a Trojan horse, it is far more pernicious and subtle in the spread of its toxic political ideology - cynically taking advantage of all the benefits of an ignorant western multiculti, pluralistic, tolerant society in order to undermine it from within as well as without.

This cover provided by religion wasn't possible for either Naziism or Communism.

I agree with your assessment about science. To them science is an affront to Allah. Everything was invented by Allah and contained in the Quran. There is no cause and effect outside of Allah's will. What they need they steal from the vanquished, or presently, buy with oil.

For example, it was the Assyrians who discovered zero and algebra a thousand years before Islam, yet they usurped these discoveries as they have done with most everything wrongly credited to them.

However, this hasn't stopped Islam from being around for 1500 years, gaining the largest empire known to man (at one point), and an ummah of 1.4 billion today.

The death cult aspect of Islam is a weapon. At least with the Communists we had detente based on mutually assured destruction. Hell, the direct arrow to heaven and virgins as a reward, is murdercide. All sins are forgiven and what's more, your whole family gets a VIP pass.

We won't even discuss the other weapon the Nazis and Communists didn't have: Muslims breed like nobody else.

Martin B.,
one of the most important bulwarks against Islam that we presently have is the West's devotion to Judeo-Christianity.

One of the worst psychological contaminations that could occur would be for suddenly in some inexplicable way everyone to decide that there is no God and that Islam is the most passionate belief that a combatant could hold.

If you want to help our struggle, the best thing that could happen would be for everyone to be in complete agreement that our Western faith makes us entirely superior to the primitive and delusional faith held by Muslims.

I agree with the implications held by almost everyone on this thread, that our biggest threats lie within ourselves.

If anything has been proven so far, it is that Islam cannot defeat the West in battle.

In conflict after conflict, the West has proven to be superior in every way. We can cut them down again and again. Our tragic losses are always inferior when compared to those that we inflict.

Our problem is mucking around, having to try to produce a population that will govern a country in a civilized way. If it were simply a matter of winning, we could have done it in a month.

David Hand,

Your example still does not make Jehovah's Witness sect morally equivalent to Islam.

Due to it being the sabbath, when I was a child I wasn't allowed to go out and play road hockey on Sundays, at the same time I wasn't programmed to hate the Jews and strap on bombs to die a glorious death as a martyr.

I've heard that islam is a 20th century religion crashing into the 21st century.

I dunno, they've conquered technology pretty good.
They sure know how to upload a beheading video to a server.
Something to put on yout resume I suppose.

Irwin Daisy - well, I guess we'll just have to continue to disagree!

I'll repeat my conclusion that Nazi fascism and communism, as ideologies, are similar in structure to Islam. They all set up their beliefs as both utopian and immutable. No, fascism and communism were not simply about 'now' but also about the utopian future, when the political structure of each, would be in place.

The opinion that Islam is one of the 'three great religions' is merely an opinion. What substantiates that evaluation?

Fascism is fascism - and whether it's Islamic or Nazi - it's the same.

Yes, Islam has done zilch about science and the advancement of knowledge; what they claim as theirs in mathematics, was instead developed by the Hindus. They are continuing with this 'cut and paste' tactic in modern technology. Oil buys them computers, cars, cell phones, the Western engineers to get the oil out of the ground. And guns. But, this can't last; it's a superficial mode.

Greg in Dallas: I'm an atheist, by the way - and I consider that THE important bulwark against Islam is Reason. Reason rests on a requirement for empirical evidence and logical relations.

David Hand - "maybe we might have the time to allow Islam to collapse." I think not. If you are thinking Protestant Reformation type collapse, that took civil wars raging throughout Europe for decades. What would abruptly collapse Islam? They are in their expansion phase again, picking soft targets globally. Terrorism has been good to them. Europe is terrified, cowered, and self-muzzled, fearful of offending. The idiot MSM, elite academia, many of our elected representatives and multi-culti addled fellow citizens still refuse to describe Islam as violent and dangerous.

Islam isn't going to internally collapse, certainly not in time to save lots and lots of future victims. Communism and Nazism, as evil as they were, were a lot easier to bring down as their disciples weren't primitive religionists of a thousand years history denied salvation if they surrendered or changed their mind. Nazism and Communism had short enough histories that a remembrance of before still existed in families.

penny - I disagree. Islamic fascism will collapse because it cannot function within an industrial economy.

Nazi fascism and communism are basically no different as a cognitive system than Islamic fascism. They are all fundamentalist ideologies, focused on a utopian future, group-based, denigrating individualism, denying reason and analysis, existing only by means of propaganda, censorship and fear.
Indeed, they were more robust than Islamic fascism because they permitted science - and Islamism rejects science. That's a key flaw in Islam - its rejection of science. It will have to deal with that when it reforms.

The fact is, Islamism cannot support an industrial economy or technology. That is why we see Islamic fascism - which is the explosion, outwards, of the repression of the population required for a society to operate within Islamism.

The West has to reject Islamic fascism - and when it does, the explosion becomes an implosion, ie, the fighting becomes internal - as it has in Iraq. Iraq has to move out of tribalism - and Islam is a tribal mode of life - and into a civic mode of governance. It has already done so, and the fighting now, is for the retention of tribalism. It will pass, and Iraq will move into a civic society - and Islamism will move out of fascism and start to reform.

Islam as a religion is not going to disappear, but, I maintain that it will reform. Yes, it set itself up as beyond reformation, but, all religions are, after all, manmade, and therefore, the human mind can slither around such frozen axioms even if 'man' says that it was 'god' rather than 'man' that made them.

The key problem in the ME, and Islam, is its political and economic tribalism. That is the root cause of Islamic fascism - and that is what must be changed.

Good, penny. AND, the enemies of Nazism and fascism knew who the enemy was, didn't try to befriend them, or take it easy on them. The insidious "moral equivalence" myth has tied the military hands of the West, which is constantly looking over its shoulder for approval. "See how nice we are to the enemy?" What utter poppycock! Not the way to win a war at all. (Greg in Dallas, if we were fighting this war like WWs I and II, we would indeed have won by now. But we're not. Pity.)

Martin B., like Irwin D., I can't see that Christian fanatics are the kind of danger the Islamofascists are. Examples? (More moral equivalence gone awry?)

And ET, though I greatly appreciate your posts, we continue to disagree on the value of the Judeo-Christian foundation of the "peace, order and good government" of the western world. Judaism and Christianity rejoice in human beings' ability to reason. In fact, I believe that orthodox Christianity claims to rest on "faith, tradition, and reason". And Jews and Christians don't wantonly slaughter those with whom they disagree.

It appears that the West is completely unmoored from faith in its own traditions. The resulting lack of reason displayed in our wimpy response to Islamofacism--Mark Steyn calls for more Western resolve today--is going to be our undoing if we don't smarten up pretty darn soon.

I'm very impressed with the level of debate.

Irwin, I understand where you're coming from in your arguments: Islamic extremism is first and foremost the biggest threat to freedom and democracy in the West right now and deserves high levels of attention and resources to combat. Agreed. Whether Islamic extremism will be viewed as a bigger threat than 20th Century Facism or Communism is a matter for historians. What's needed now is an all out effort to neutralize the current threat.

However, tying the "moral equivalency" label to my previous remarks misses the mark entirely and incorrectly paints me as being sympathetic to Islam. The point of my comments was to identify the disease of extremism infects not only the obvious cause' du jour of violence from Islamic extremism but is very alive and well in religion with more western roots. I contend that religious extremism is very dangerous to freedom and democracy in all its' forms and is ultimately what we as free individuals must fight.

David Hand refers to the Jehovah's Witnesses as having near total control over individual freedom. I'm aware of a recent local church movement that has a "Book of Rules" that even defines how much arm women can show (put on a burka for Jesus anyone?). As for blind obedience remember Rev. Jim Jones and his Kool Aid bash? As for predisposition to violence, remember the heavily armed group of Revelation wackos at Waco? The name "Christian Identity" denotes a religious movement in the U.S. that unites many white supremacist groups. However, in no way is anything I describe equivalent to Islamic extremists building atom bombs for specific use on a democratic nation. But given time, resources and opportunity extremist Christian nutbar leaders will cause their own damage to free western societies. The disease of extremism is the same in Christianity as it is in Islam. All it takes is to enforce a "Book of Rules" on a group of compliant people.

Religious extremism is bad news for individual freedom and democracy, period. I think ET has it mostly right in saying that Reason is the most important bulwark against Islam. However, Reason is powerless unless individual freedom exists. Therefore if the West is to win this idealogical war, individual freedom must be protected first and foremost.

Way off topic. Happy New Year to Kate and everyone that contributes positively to this blogging treasure! God Bless you all.

ET

"The opinion that Islam is one of the 'three great religions' is merely an opinion. What substantiates that evaluation?"

As much as I believe that Islam is an obvious fraud, the world has credited it with equal status. That's just the way it is.

Because of this, it has gleaned benefits that neither Naziism or Communism enjoyed. As well, Germans weren't born Nazis, neither were Russians born Communist. Islam has a 1500 year tradition that isn't about to end with a fizzle like the CCCP did.

As much as I respect your opinion and might wish for it to come true, there are too many factors involved. Perhaps the most important and elusive is spiritual. A factor, given that you are an atheist, might be difficult for you to understand - faith being irrational and all.

The only way for Islam to reform would be for them to reject their prophet/saviour and reject most of the Quran. This will not happen.

Given that we're going to be oil dependent for the foreseeable future, unfortunately, I hold the opinion that drastic measures will have to be taken in order to protect western culture.

I and many others hold the opinion that necessary changes in attitude are our first line of defence. For example, everyone, regardless of faith and political bent, must become proud of our shared Judeo/Christian and yes, rational tradition -- and understand and promote it to be superlative to Islam, without exception.

If Muslims and their political agencies don't accept this, and continue to agitate, then ban Muslim immigration. If a next step is required, perhaps the practice of Islam becomes an undemocratic (unAmerican) activity (which is not hard to prove) - and therefore the practice of Islam would be monitored, if not abolished.

Barring that, it'll probably take a nuke or two. If this sounds harsh, I suggest you study their history and religion more.

Martin B,

I appreciate your comments and apologize if I might have seemed harsh.

The point I'm making is that regardless of somewhat minor religious intolerance shown by various Christian sects and doctrine -- the overwhelming danger, violence and intolerance of Islam must not be rationalized, justified, confused or ignored.

Our shared future depends on a single-minded focus. They certainly have one.

ET - I don't think Islam rejects science per se, it is more than willing to hijack the technology of others for their oil fields, hospitals, weapons accumulation and, now, nuclear bomb building. Muslims have never had an infrastructure to pursue modern science or technology. I'm not so sure that if they had had decent universities in place, Islam and science are incompatible. Liberal arts, a different story.

You are inconsistent in stating Islam "will reform", then, "it set itself up as beyond reformation"...which is it? And, what's the time frame? If Islam's reformation or collapse is 100, 200, even 20 years from now, at the rate their violent religious frenzy keeps going they will have burned down the world by then. How many years do the Israelis have left in Islam's playbook?

Martin B - a brief comment. Reason is an attribute of individuals. Groups don't think; only individuals have that capacity.

Irwin Daisy - I'm proud of the West's tradition of Reason - a reason that requires empirical grounds and logical relations. Reason, by the way, inserts an ethical and moral valuation of life.

I don't see how one can ban Muslim immigration. The ideology would simply go underground during immigration and emerge later. And with the global reality of the Internet, you cannot ban Islamic ideology from a global communication.

I also don't think that you can ban the practice of Islam. That would demolish the democratic structure - and fascism would have won.

I think that instead, the tactics ought to be to destroy the 'root cause' of Islamic fascism. That is tribalism - a mode of life promoted and defined in the Koran, suitable for a non-industrial peasant economy with a small population and totally dysfunctional now. You destroy this by promoting and enabling democracy.

Second, democracy is grounded in individual freedoms and the use of reason. This requires evaluation of opinions, dissent and critique rather than cultural relativism. So- the West has to insist on its rights to question, think, analyze, demand proof - and debate and evaluate.

Third - you insist that a state must operate within the rule of law and a civic mode; again, this rejects multiculturalism and 'special privileges' and non-state loyalties.

None of this requires 'a nuke or two' or banning immigration or Islam. But it does require the West to stand up and promote its values - the values of the Magna Carta, the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

Good point Penny,

It may not be up to the bonehead west to ponder moral equivalence, pcism, multiculti liberalism. or what to do about enforcing tolerance towards Muslims. Israel is being marginalized by its 'friends' and forced to act on its own in order to survive. 2007 is looking to be an extremely violent year.

ET,

Still, Islam is not compatible with democracy, reason, or our shared values and history. It is competitive. In order for it to be compatible, Muslims would have to reject Mohammad as their prophet and the perfect life example, as well as the Quran as the uncreated word of Allah - if not Allah altogether. Any of which, to them, is a mortal and unforgiveable sin.

It's a conundrum, unlike any we've faced before.

The danger in banning Islam is banning religion altogether. The precedent to this type of action has, to a lesser degree, been set in Ontario already with regards to Sharia law.

I hope you're starting to see what the cloak of 'religion' is doing and has done for Islam. They're either going to convert us, or we're going to convert them. And I agree, the other choices are unimaginable.

How about they stay in their yard and we'll stay in ours?

ET, of course I know you're an atheist. My heavens, by this time I know you are Piercean, I know something of your scientific background and educational accomplishments. I even know that you spend most of your Christmases in San Francisco. (And if you were on the west coast this Christmas, I hope you enjoyed it. A million years ago I lived on the corner of California and Hyde...)

I appreciate your point about Reason, and I've enjoyed your discussion of this in posts over many months. I also understand the importance of Reason.

When you're preparing to go into battle, chaplains run around and ask you if you want to say a prayer. I can assure you that at that juncture, people really don't care very much whether it's a Protestant or Catholic chaplain. In fact, a lot of atheists discover how enlightening Pascal's Wager is.

The fact is that irrespective of what the views of intellectuals and the views of those at the academy may be, the troops profit enormously because of their faith. People rolling down drunk in the fleshpots of Saigon bars could reach for a divine possibility the next day when it could be their last.

Additionally, let's fact it, most of the citizens of our two countries are not intellectuals. And one of the things you learn militarily, even in hand-to-hand combat, is that a feeling of superiority to the enemy gives a certain psychological edge. It is helpful for the vast number of our population and our troops to feel that our faith is ultimately the correct rudder and the reliable orientation when facing an enemy that has fanatical courage of conviction.

Ultimately, some of our veterans will go off to universities as I did, and examine these subjects with a closer scrutiny. Do a little original thinking, find out what others have had to say about all these issues, and at such time Reason becomes the more reliable consideration. But for that kid getting ready to go over the top, there's no time for anything like that, and he needs everything that faith can give him.

Incidentally, perhaps I should mention again that I used to be "Greg outside Dallas," but duty called and I had to move back into the big city. ...snarl...

Greg IN Dallas. Hmmm. Have I revealed that much about myself? Actually, my son is now in Boston - so, it's Xmas in Boston now. Marvellous, beautiful city. I do appreciate the difference between the west and east coasts, and understand the passionate attachments one can have towards each side.

I'm not against faith - and the acknowledgment that there is a stronger force than the individual. I just don't define it as 'god'.

Irwin Daisy - I don't think that it is realistic in our global networked world that we can say 'you stay in your backyard and we'll stay in ours'. Such separate domains are not longer possible in the global network.

Have a happy new year everyone.

"I don't see how one can ban Muslim immigration."

Why not? Makes sense to me. Fear of offending? Are Muslims entitled to light anywhere that wages are better? I certainly can't imagine the inelegant and odious "Muslims need not apply" signs at our embassies and airports, but, I would sure find it sensible, given the security risks, for Muslim applications to our countries to cease being processed. How many Christians are granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia? How many foreigners are permitted to live off of their foreign compounds in Saudi Arabia? Zero. How many Americans/Canadians/Europeans can safely live anywhere in the ME? Are foreign contract workers really that offended? Probably not. We aren't compatible with their culture, they aren't to ours. Saudi Arabia isn't overrun with Christian missionaries. They won't allow it. Why should we permit a religion with the attitudes, tenacity and violence of modern Spanish Conquistadors onto our shores? Why should we expect a different outcome?

Tonight is one more New Years post-9/11 where I feel anxiety that they will do something BIG in Times Square. Sickening and sad, but that's the reality into the future, maybe even into my grandkid's adulthood. They started this mess. We don't need one more Muslim, guessing at their intentions and assimilation potential, into America.

The barbarians are at the gate and we're greeting them with open, multicultural, non-judgemental, pluralistic arms. Our global, networked world and indeed, the future is at stake. Let's not take anything for granted. Rather, let's defend it, once again. That's the price of freedom.

Greg in Dallas, great post. Pascal's wager - and there are no atheists in a fox hole. Right on.

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I believe there are two forces at work here, one good (God) and the other evil (satin).
Some are useing the word Christian very loosely. To me, a christian is a follower of Jesus, the Christ. As in (God in the flesh) our savior. Read John 1:1-14
Jw's believe Jesus was a good man, but not God.
Muslums believe Jesus was a prophet, but not God.
A cult, is anyone who follows a man, as in jim jones or mohammed etc. Therefore islam is a cult.
Someone mentioned that mohammed thought he was possessed, i would agree, he was, demon possessed.
Anyone who thinks flying airliners into skyscapers or lopping off heads in the name of alla, in order to cram their cult down my throat, in my opinion is definately demon possessed.
God gave us a book, called the bible, in it he mentions a lot of names he calles himself. alla isn't one of them. Therefore alla is an imposter, or another name for the devil in my opinion.
Haveing said all that, i agree, islam is indeed a very real thret. Very hard to fight someone who wants to kill you, lives next door, doesn't put on a uniform and is willing to blow himself up to achieve his goal. Perhaps anyone entering a mosk should be a candidate for deportation. Enough of the trojan horse already. And what do we do after they get their mitts on a nuke and get the capability to deliver it? The iranian dictator already said he will wipe israel off the map when he gets a nuke. guess who's next? There is a very real possibility that suitcase nukes are already on our soil.
The last chapter of the bible, called revelation, is for such a time as this.

God Bless and Happy New Year to all.

Canada has all the prerequisites needed for any and all religions to grow and flourish.

We have Freedom of Religion in our Charter for a start and we allow all religious institutions a tax free privilege.

Add to that we are rife with political correctness to the point we can't call a spade a spade without huge outcries. This is proliferated by a mostly Leftist bent MSM.

Given that we are fighting terrorism spawned by radical Islam it would make sense to curb immigration from Countries which are ruled by it.
Any religion which forces it's followers to pray as much as five times a day or suffer consequences and does not treat their women equally comes very close to being a Cult overlapped by religion.

There's a nice editorial in today's (Jan 1/07) Washington Times by Nat Hentoff, titled Fear Itself. It deals with Newt Gingrich's proposal to impose restrictions on the First Amendment, that vital freedom of speech and thought. I think it's relevant to this discussion.

Liz - restricting immigration from Islamic countries won't deal with the problem of Islamic fascism. After all, who's to say that the immigrants aren't actually fleeing radical Islam? And many of the most radical, as in all religions, are conversions to the religion.

I think that an attempt to set up the world into 'kitchen cupboards', each with their own separate content, simply isn't viable in a globally networked world.

I think we have to deal with the root causes of Islamic fascism, and in my view, that is tribalism. Islamic fascism is a political/economic response to a political/economic dysfunctional mode of life. Enable democracy and the fascism will retreat to the periphery. Maintain tribalism, even in 'separate cupboards/countries' - and fascism will spread through the entire globe.

I think a difference between some of us, is that some are looking at the Islamic text and setting up the text as a primary causal force of Islamic fascism. The Koran, the text, sets up a political/economic lifestyle suited only to a non-industrial peasant tribalism. The realities of industrialism are drastically shaking the equilibrium of this tribalism. The first result is fascism, an attempt to maintain the tribalism. My view is that the primary cause is not the text but the socioeconomic system, tribalism.

I think that your suggestions of 'locking them into their countries' will serve to maintain that tribalism rather than dissolve it. It won't work; the juxtaposition of a tribal sociopolitical mode with an industrial economy will cause an explosion. Like a chemical reaction, the two don't mix. That's what has happened already. It will be worse if we insist on their isolation.

Instead - switch the chemical composition of the society. Disable tribalism by enabling a civic mode of government.

Then, that secondary force, the Islamic text, which expresses tribalism, will start to change, almost on its own. After all, no matter what one says, it was written by men and it can be changed by men.

Don't believe it's possible for our Western Democracies the Islamists are now choosing to come to can really "police" what is going on behind the walls.
We can only act when our Laws are broken, then it is a bit late.
We would be foolish not to stem the flow of immigrants from the Tinderboxes of the ME at this crucial time.
Let's hope most are here for the right reasons and contribute to our society.
Multiculturalism will take us down if it isn't scrapped. Ghettoizing can lead us down the path of Balkanization.
Without a cohesive society we cannot have a Country.

Liz - I agree that multiculturalism is disastrous. It's actually a 'modern' version of tribalism, locking people into separate enclaves. What it does in addition, is that it refuses to evaluate their behaviour, setting up each lifestyle as equally valid. Of course, they are not equal. And, multicultural tribalism prevents the operation of a civic society.

A civic society is one where all residents are citizens of the state. Not of their ethnic, religious or whatever identity; that is secondary. First, they are citizens of the civic state and must obey its laws which are common to all.

Yes, we can only act when our laws are broken. Anything else is a violation of civic freedoms, for its conclusions rest on supposition and speculation.

But, the West has to insist on the primacy of the civic society over any multiculturalism. That means, for example, that a Muslim woman may not wear the veil in a security system, ie, an airport, driving a car, teaching in a public school, etc. It means that, as long as Islamic fascism continues, that special attention must be paid to Muslims, to their imams and preachings, etc. It means no special 'rights'; ie, the banks can continue to hand out piggy banks to children, the West can publish political cartoons mocking Mohammed and so on. A civic society treats all as equal and above all, is based on the right to analyze, question, reason, debate, dissent.

Nice idea, treat all as equals. With Multiculturalism we have some more equal than others. The challenges go to the unelected Court Judges and they decide. So much for Equality.
That is one of the prime reason we have so many from Islamic country's coming here.
How long will it be before we have Sharia Law in this Land? Once it hits the Courts it's a done deal.

We have a huge battle to be fought if we are to have a truly free Country with equal rights for all. Truth we hardly have true freedom of speech.
Remember, our Courts decide and in most cases SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS!

Blonde(christian)catholic + Black(muslim)islamic = Half-Breed(jewish)(?)
Blonde + Half-Breed = Quaterbreed
Blonde + QuarterBreed = ?
Population growth is what direction?
birthrate is what?
deathrate is what direction?
Human Evolution evolving into what species?
God is Blonde
Allah is Black

George Bush is God. Allah is Black. Iran is Half-Breed(jewish).

Hitlerizm