Islamism

[sailaway21]

The thwarting of planned attacks on Idlewild airport in New York raises some troubling questions. At this hour, the plotters appear to be American citizens, some born and raised here. This is troubling, but not all together surprising, given the events in Britain last year.

Religion, within the US, has always conformed to US law, generally under the biblical principle of, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Mormonism and the practise of polygamy are the most obvious example. The world, for it is not the US alone, is now confronted by a religious sect that is propagated through religious schools, mostly funded through Saudi Whabbist interests. The interests of that sect are the destruction of western culture, and they are preaching the same jihadist mantra that Al Qaeda is, in furtherence of this goal. The best example of this are the subway bombers in England, all British subjects.

The mosques, and madrassas, of Europe and the US are very often preaching similar things that would, in no way embarass bin Laden. It is one thing to have an external enemy, and we can discuss border and port security ad infinitum. But little Ahmed may be receiving his jihadist training at your local mosque, and his chemistry training at your local high school. We allowed the blind sheik of Brooklyn to prostelyze probably far too long. Generally, the US government does not cross the threshold of house of worship. In fact, the government has allowed churches within the US to offer "sanctuary" to illegals and the like when no such constitutional right of the churches exists. Government in the US is understandably reluctant to be seen breaking down the doors of churches, for any purpose. But, what to do about the mosque or madrassa where litlle Johnny Jihad is being inculcated in the ways of terror and charting his own roadmap to his personal 72 vestal virgins? I wager that this issue and question will be with us for some time to come. Western liberal democracy is not designed to deal with anarchy from within, relying on broad political consensus to straighten matters out, before the bomb-throwing begins.

One possibly good outcome of these events will be the fact that the conspirators are US citizens. They will be tried under US law as criminals. We will now witness the dog and pony show that will entail, and certainly gain new found reasons for not granting similar status to the combatants of Gitmo. The early morning line here at the Dutch Collection Services Corporation is no convictions within four years, with appeals running at least another. It'll make the OJ trial look swift.

[Valiente]

I don't envy that "dog and pony show" at all. But I agree with your premise that religious intolerance and indoctrination transcend borders. See "The Crusades and The Inquisition". But I would include ALL religions that purport to hold the key to a singular truth. Wahabbism/Salafism is neither new nor particularly remarkable: it is a direct analog to the Puritanism of the 1500s in England, with the political component that led to the English Commonwealth of the 1650s.

I abhor all such religious extremism. I believe that while faith can inform private morality and behaviour, it is unnecessary to have faith or a faith to be a law-abiding and generally accepted as "good person". And because there are a plague of faiths, it cannot have a place in public policy or governance. That is the key to the concept of the separation of church and state, although it was originally a measure to avoid an Established State Church in the U.S., as Anglicanism is in England.

Because Wahabbism agitates for the institution of both sharia law in the Muslim world and the overthrow and conversion of "infidels", at the point of a sword, if necessary, I oppose it vehemently. I don't care what claptrap others believe until they insist I do the same. Then I tend to want to look for the nukes, because I feel as if it's time to extirpate an evolutionary dead end: the zealot.

While I'm glad your homegrown jihadis were stopped, unlike the ones in Madrid and London, those in the U.S. have to ask themselves some hard questions today. 1) To what extent has the creeping religiosity of the U.S. in the past 20 years affected policy? (I believe a good proportion of your slate of Republican presidential candidates are avowed Biblical literalists/creationists, for instance, and GW Bush seems to consider Jesus a policy adviser). 2) To what extent has the U.S.'s support of the corrupt House of Saud, and the corrupt regimes of Pakistan and Egypt driven those living in those countries into the formerly "fringe" arms of the Wahhabist/Islamists parties and imams?

I do not believe that Islam is an inherently evil path, but like all religions of my experience, their dependence on shutting down debate with "faith" and its suspension of large parts of one's critical facilities gives them a great potential for evil. Where political change has been made impossible, such as in Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt, to name a few, "salvation through sacrifice" appears as an option, as does all the poisonous and brutal "movements" for which blowing oneself up for god seems like a winning proposition.

[sailaway21]

Valiente,
An excellent post, minus the equating of Protestant fundamentalism with Islamism. The salient difference being that the Protestant fundamentalists that so worry you are commited to changing laws they disagree with through the American political process. Their convictions do not include an overthrow of that process, and their more radical elements, ie...abortion clinic bombers, are roundly condemned and held deserving of the prosecution under the law they receive. It is precisely the marked contrast between these two approaches that I wished to highlight. Islamism, a priori, rejects the civil government of the western world and with that in hand feels no compunction against anarchy in pursuit of it's goal of a restored caliphate.

Your second point is absolutely on the mark and the classification of the countries mentioned as "allies" should perhaps be modified to "allies of convenience" with a good case to be made that any convenience has long ago been dissipated by the realities of their culture.

A religion that does not hold to be the single truth is no religion at all, as a cursory examination of the Unitarian-Universalist faith will reveal. But there is a vast difference between a belief in having a personal relationship with God and an insistence that all others, as a rule of law or the point of the sword, swear a similar allegiance. Protestant fundamentalists are quite willing to let you make the decision to go to hell, Islamic fundamentalists of certain stripes are willing to help you get there in a more timely fashion.

[hellosailor]

Sailaway, I would encourage everyone to find and read a Koran. Having just done so this year, and understanding that an English translation must be an abomination. I totally lost all respect for the cult of submission (submission is one literal translation of Islam, apparently) and can see why it is going to be a continuing problem.

Like a junkyard dog, permanently deranged, it must simply be kept out of the house or it will attack the children.

There is beauty in Islam--but mainly terror, fear, submission, and a good root for problems. No new beauty, peace, or inspiration to be found in it. It's a long slog to read through, but one should know one's enemies as well or better than one's friends.

And if I'm ever captured by Jihadi's, I can throw some of their own stoppers right back at 'em.

[bestfriend]

Anybody read "the god delusion"? I haven't yet, but was advised too.

[sailaway21]

The following article may be of interest:Andrew C. McCarthy on JFK Airport Plot on National Review Online

[DeepFrz]

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, no matter what her/his religion. A Christian that interprets the bible in a literal manner really doesn't respect the rights of any other believer of a different faith.

Just look at history. The crusades for instance. The Catholic wars in France and Spain. Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that the fundamentalist protestants in the US have been hacking away at the American civil liberties and regard those rights just an impediment to change until they get the power to enact the change in law.

G. W. Bush doesn't care what you or I think. He believes that he and his administration are right and that they have the right to protect "American Interests" as they interpret them without regard to established international law.

But what in the hell are these threads doing on a sailing forum.

[wind_magic]

Few thoughts on this thread, very few. Things I don't like include the following.

First, I don't like how the Christian church has not evolved with the times. Yes, there was a time when Jesus cultism was necessary, much like it is necessary to explain some things to children in terms of purple dinosaurs or pretty music. But this is the 21st century, can't we talk about God and the Universe in terms that normal people can relate to ? There just aren't that many people in this world, even Christian church going people, who actually believe that there was a real Adam and Eve, or that Jesus actually came back to life after being killed. Can't we use those beautiful stories to illustrate principles to our children and yet have real grown up discussions about the real issues of community, treating each other right, finding peace and contentment, etc, in church ? Is it actually necessary to sit in church and listen to stuff that was written for illiterate peasants in the German countryside and pretend to believe it just so you can participate in church and get all the things from it that you really need ? I mean the world has moved on, and at some point the church has to move on with it and make itself relevant again. I don't actually have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to feel that church is important for me. I don't even need to believe there is a heaven and hell either, I am grown up enough to understand that these are just concepts that are relevant to the human heart. I can believe Jesus's teachings were important without having to have the carrot of eternal salvation waved around in front of me, I'm perfectly content with the knowledge that when I die it's over. That knowledge does not make church irrelevant to me, in fact, it makes the entire idea of participating in spiritual pursuit with others even more important to me .. some people NEED church. I mean I just don't know how grown up people can sit down in church and listen to some of this stuff with a straight face like it was all literally true, it's time for the church to grow up, because half the stuff that is said in church is to me embarrassing to hear.

Second, I don't like how church and church-going people are attacked all the time. The left especially constantly does this, and personally I'm really sick of hearing about it. Yeah, there are some people in this world that actually thinks that animals were put on an ark two-by-two and that saved all the animals on the planet. Yes, there are some people in this world that actually believes that they will be greeted in heaven by a bunch of virgins and treated to a good time for eternity if they blow themselves up with explosives. But you know ... most people don't believe that. And yet most people do believe that there is something to the world, that the Universe has a will of it's own and that we are spiritual beings participating in it. Religious affiliation is important to a lot of people for reasons ranging from social interaction, to community service, helping the poor, providing shelter, acknowledging the dead, having ceremonies for the living including marriage, etc, as well as being a place that we can teach children right from wrong and maybe hear a few words ourselves that touch our hearts and make a difference in our lives. And I am sick to death of hearing the left especially lay constant seige to religion like that everybody who goes to church or to a mosque is a f*&^%-+ dumbass. Yes, we know that the church teaches a lot of non-sense and that it isn't up with the times ... we got it already, it's a problem, we're working on it, and none of us really thinks you are an insightful genius for trying to clue us in. But that fact that the church is behind the times doesn't make it okay for leftists to tear down every Christian symbol in the country even when those symbols are of cultural and historical significance, or talk bad on everybody that goes to church. I mean sometimes people on the far left would do better to realize that maybe they should be hanging around with other people talking about spiritual matters too instead of just disengaging from society and being out on the edge by themselves all the time. Most of us WANT some spirtuality in government, we don't want the government to be run by robots who have no room in their hearts for mystery and beauty. And news flash - not everyone who is uncomfortable with abortion is stupid either, you know ? I mean I'm all about individual freedom, etc, and making choices ... but you know even us normal moderate average Joe types think that it's a little weird killing baby children, it doesn't sit with all of us that well. Yeah, I don't want women to have to do that kind of thing in back alleys (the term "back alleys" having been said in relation to abortion so many times it approaches "coke is it" in terms of cultural recognition), I'd rather they have the option to go to an abortion clinic if they're just dead set on doing it. But at the same time ... hey, I'd rather they not get knocked up in the first place, and if they do I'd rather they didn't use abortion as a birth control pill. A fetus is a living human being in miniature, and killling them is freaking weird, and most people think so.

Another thing I don't like is how people bash Islam just because we're pissed off at a bunch of people who just happen to claim they are Islamic. Yes, they have their crazies just like we have ours, some well beyond delusional. But you know I doubt Bin Laden and these guys even believe in Islam. They just know a good thing when they see it, and they know they can get recruits that way ... their real thing is hating people and killing people to get their way, and Islam hasn't got much to do with it. Yes, Islam suffers from the same problems that Christianity does in terms of not being up with the times, but basically Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and many other religions share a lot of the same underlying principles with each other. Principles such as the importance of honoring elders, taking care of the weak, showing compassion to others, etc, people around the world are more similar than different. Yes, Islam means "surrender", but it doesn't mean for the enemies of Islam to surrender ... what it means is that when you are some punk ass kid walking around in the streets thinking you are Barney badass waving a gun around, that you should surrender to the will of God and straighten up your act, because you are out of harmony with the rest of humanity and with the rest of the Universe and you're going to lose in the end. "Surrender" in this case is about giving up all of your losing ways, and as James Brown said so well ... "get on the good foot", and start working with the will of the Universe and not against it. Islam has a lot of interesting and beautiful concepts like that, and there are a lot more moderate, interesting, normal people who pray everyday to Allah than there are gun totting madmen using it as a means to an end. So I don't like it when I hear people bashing Islam just to win a political argument, it's lame .. and we all know that people who do that are only doing it because they feel they have to lie or exaggerate every detail to build a case against whatever it is they don't like. Yeah, terrorists are dirt bags, but not everybody in the middle east is.

But the biggest thing that irritates me is that a bunch of people reading this are probably thinking "Yeah, I basically agree with what you're saying Wind Magic" ... but that for whatever reason we can't seem to get ourselves organized enough to get rid of all these fruitloops on both the Democratic and Republican side that seem to run the place. I hate that the country is so screwed up that moderates can't have reasonable discussions with each other without it being interupted by damn fringe political people spouting off their crazy crap all the time. I wish there was a party for the rest of us. Or something. Maybe we could call it the ... "I'm not with these other assholes" party.

I guess I've gone far enough. Or maybe too far!

The real shame is that these and other everyday normal ideas are contraversial.

[DeepFrz]

This guy talks some sense.

John Shelby Spong: Jesus for the Non-Religious

As does

[sailaway21]

Well, that was a nice, if predictable, diversion.

Deepfrz,
I find it notable, in your listing of religion inspired conflict, you failed to mention the Moors invasion of Europe. Nevertheless, I'd hoped to have a discussion on the current situation. For the record, most protestant fundamentalists seem to be advocating that their parishners vote their beliefs at the voting booth. The Muslim imams seem to be advocating their parishners blow up the voting booth. A distinction not without significance, no?
The thread is in a "sailing" forum under "off topic". After 56 posts one would figure you'd know that splicing line might be found in "seamanship" or "gear and maintenance" while the asses, usually full of crap, reside in "off topic".(g)

Rev. Spong is, shall we say, interesting. He ably represents the Christian-Lite. If you like your religion with no heavy lifting-he's your man. If your personal relationship with a Higher Power is what matters to you, you might find him to be thin gruel.

Wind Magic,
Are you familiar with the term cognitive dissonance? Sounds like there might be some of it in your post. This is not a debate to determine what number, or specific percentage, of Muslims are good neighbors. The issue at hand is whether or not Muslim imams, in large numbers, are advocating the jihadist agenda we know so well. And if their followers are acting upon their preaching. When a majority of European Muslims believe that 9/11 was either a set-up by the USA or an acceptable action of an aggrieved people I would think it prudent that we, the western world, investigate just what is going on in those mosques and madrassas. The deafening silence from the Muslim community, when it comes to condemning such acts, should have our attention. This does not seem to be an area where it can safely be assumed that we, as Americans, are all on the same page. We all witnessed the chearing in the streets of the middle east during 9/11. We are now, with recent events, required to ask ourselves how many American Islamists were cheering in their homes here. That is a frightening question and will become no less frightening by ignoring the asking.

Hellosailor's suggestion makes eminent sense.