Separationism

One healthy way to separate us from that world is through energy independence. Right now Congress is presented with the option of drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico to tap the vast deposits that have been found there. They seem to have cold feet. We need this oil desparately! Write your congressman and tell him that we need that oil and energy independence, and we'll vote him out if he waffles on this matter.
Energy independence needs to be a national project of highest importance. We have 2 trillion barrels of oil within the oil shale deposits centered in Colorado. We, the U.S. of A., have the largest untapped oil reserves of any nation in the world. It's time to stop being stupid!>

I don't see how it is possible to build a wall, metaphorical or otherwise. We're going to have to engage them.

I think that Benedict may be doing the right things. We need to heal our own culture, and we need to encourage the Islamic world to renounce violence and embrace reason.>

It would be hard to reconcile an approach like this with being with the sheep at the final judgement with respect to Matthew 25.>

That was supposed to be "the Western Powers in general circa 1918" - blasted automatic smileys...>

So how much of our oil do we actually get from the Middle East?

A little less than 13%.

Even if we reduced it to zero, do you think Muslim countries would have trouble finding buyers?

Nuclear power is the safest and greenest answer to energy problems. And hopefully would take away much of the economic power of radical Islam.

On another note this isn't the first time the west has had to fight off Islam. Spain finally expelled the invaders in 1492, after 700 years of fighting.

Will we be able to sustain a centuries long struggle for civilization?

We are tired of fighting in Iraq after less than 4 years.>

Nuclear power is the safest and greenest answer to energy problems. And hopefully would take away much of the economic power of radical Islam.

That's part of the problem. Denying people the safest and greenest answer to energy problems makes them mad. Taking away economic power makes them angrier. Angry people don't become less radical.>

Who are we denying nuclear power? Aren t we denying them nuclear weapons.

I can agree that taking away economic power might make them angrier. Perhaps I should have said it would take away some of the leverage they have on the west.

Although, what are the consequences of an angrier suicide bomber? Can he make his victims MORE dead? The only way to stop them is to DEFEAT them.>

The short answer is, yes, #5 does follow if #s 1-4 are more or less true. And, alas, they are true. If nothing else, Benedict's original Regensburg lecture made manifest that Islam cannot embrace Western conceptions of reason & etc. without becoming alienated from its own history and doctrine - and this, we lack the capacity to achieve by licit means.>

I think history will resolve this problem for us.

Islamic fundamentalism is a last gasp of a dying religion, much the same as Christian fundamentalism is.

The future powers of the globe are China and India. America and Europe are all but defunct, their culture is barbarized and splintered. It's all over but the crying.

Technology will suprass the gasoline powered engine soon enough and fossil fuels will be, well, fossils. With that the money will dry up that's fueling the terrorist states.>

WRY, c'mon . . . sounds like you're comparing the separationist solution to Nazism. When, in fact, the separationist solution was used to counter the Nazi threat.

Please Google "Benes Decree" & "Fitzgerald" and read.>

Stephen,
I could be wrong, but I believe that Iran says that they are enriching uranium for nuclear energy. It seems to me that we need to find a way to permit countries to enrich uranium if that's what's required for nuclear power without permitting them to go on to build nuclear weapons. I don't know if that's feasible, but if not, it's going to be a big problem.>

I haven't wanted to see Borat because I thought it unfairly depicted Americans as a bunch of xenophobic nuts. But reading this I have to wonder.
I'm thinking it's the Arab world that should want to disengage from the West. We help overthrow democratically elected leaders (1953 -CIA in Iran); suppress the diversification of the economies while propping up corrupt totalitarian governments; arm and encourage sociopaths (Saddam Hussein and the mujahadeen); invade a country to "save them," meanwhile destroying their infrastructure; etc., etc. Then we have the audacity to say, "What wrong with them?" Before we start ethnic cleansing, how about we all fall on our knees and pray that God forgive us for *our* collective sins?>

Fitzgerald cites the Benes Decree, issued by the government of Czechoslovakia, in 1946. By this decree, because of their actions in the recent war (taking the enemy's side), 3 million ethnic Germans were expelled from the lands that had been populated by ethnic Germans for 600 years.

Been done before. Can be done again. We just need to get over our collective love affair with political correctness and reacquire the spine we once had as a nation.

That would be the Czechoslovakia that was part of the Soviet sphere of influence, right? You really want to emulate the Stalinists?

Yes, it's been done before. Sure it's been done before. Ignoring for the moment more recent examples like Yugoslavia and Rwanda, there's the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the expulsion of the Jews and Moslems from Spain in the late 15th century, and the periodic expulsion of the Jews from various European countries throughout the Middle Ages. Not to mention the Spanish Inquisition. What do you think the Spanish Inquisition was about, anyway? It was about making sure that folks who converted to Catholicism at the time of the expulsion really had converted, and weren't just finding a way to stay and form a fifth column.

Oh, do, let's do it again. It's been such a wonderful idea in the past.

How about we try to restrict ourselves to solutions that are not actually immoral?>

Thus, I think our choices are now as follows: frequent 9/11-scale massacres; nuclear war against Islam; isolation of Islam.

Before we pitch the virtue of hope out the window, could we retain "conversion of Islam" on the list?>

If i read Victor Morton's analysis correctly, since we have determined that invading a country didn't work in making them love us, then it's hopeless to think it can happen, and winning them over is now hopeless.

Really -- is invasion the only arrow in our quiver?>

The theological virtue of hope is no imperative in the discussion of secular politics.

I don't see why.

But anyway how is "conversion of Islam" supposed to happen given the legal restrictions Muslims place on Christianity practically everywhere they rule the roost? Dhimmi Christians are doing all they can just to survive, and God help and bless them. But most Christians who can leave Dar Al-Islam do (witness Lebanon and "Palestine"). And our defeat in Iraq emboldens Dar Al-Islam.

I hear you.

But the Berlin Wall shouldn't have fallen, either.>

The problem as I see it is the agressive tactics that muslims are making to integrate in our society which, if they are to remain devout, requires that groups with less demands and requirements get the short end of the stick and wind up living as defacto muslims.

The solution is to encourage Muslims to follow the Amish/Orthodox Jewish model and voluntarily isolate themselves in order to maintain their way of life. In this model, these groups are loyal peaceful citizens of this country with full rights of citizenship but at the same time, they live in an alternate or parallel world with their own institutions and customs. Contact between the worlds is kept to a minimum. These communities are largely independent and make few demands on the greater culture for accomodation.

We should work to convince muslims to do the same. Do they want segregated swimming pools? Don't force a change in our public swimming pools then. Build your own swimming pools and gyms etc. If a muslim wants a halal environment at work or at school, let them build it at their own expense. If a muslim is offended by the expression of other religions, then let him keep himself apart as much as possible. If a muslim woman wants to veil, then she should stick to her areas and not demand that everyone be subjected to her shouting her identity in public at large. If a muslim woman wants to remain completely covered then she should do the same instead of subjecting the rest of us to her screaming her identity amongst other people minding their own business.

Of course, we would have to insist on one civil law in many cases but muslims could be allowed some autonomy to settle civil disputed among themselves using their traditions.

I truly believe this could be worked out in a way that would not require us all to become defacto muslims while at the same time finding muslims comfortable enclaves in our nation. The trouble with the plan is that I doubt that Muslims have any interest in an arrangement like this. I think that aggressively changing our society is what they want to do. I dont think this sinister. I think they truly believe that if they can just force the change by using our laws to the fullest advantage that they will be doing their part to perfect our society and that everyone will be happier living their way. But that is not the case and can never be the case. Whenever one group demands more accomodation than the rest, then the rest cannot help but lose their freedom and their choices. orthodox Islam is incompatible with true and full liberty, with full and true choice and full and true free expression as we have known it in our culture for some time now. They must give up their improvement project and get down to emulating the Amish and the Hasidim. Its the only way.>

It seems to me that the only hope is to get Moslems thinking of jihad as something that should be pursued via reasoned argument, rather than by violence.

And, from our perspective, if they don't ... then what?

And, from their perspective, if reconceptualizing jihad on those terms doesn't succeed ... then what?>

Because "hope" is defined as a theological virtue, not a human one. Each gets their own catechism section, for example, and the human virtues are different ones. Secular politics contains nothing sealed and won by the blood of Christ and is entirely contained within the shifting sands of history. Thus, in matters secular, hope is delusion.

In other words, hope has to do with our eternal salvation. OK.

But doesn't hope also apply to trust in God's providence for this life, or is that something entirely different?

Also, I thought that, in a sense, everything was redeemed by Christ.>

And, from our perspective, if they don't ... then what?

And, from their perspective, if reconceptualizing jihad on those terms doesn't succeed ... then what?

Then I guess we try something else.>

I'm not convinced that Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization. It's a threat, but to our whole civilization? I'd say that it's a threat to NYC, Washington DC, and whatever city they may choose to target next. But our whole civilization? I don't buy it.

I'd agree that we can't destroy Islam.

I'd agree that we can't democratize Islamic societies. That's up to them.

We can't assimilate radical Islam. Many nonradical Muslims have assimilated very nicely. A family a few doors away from me is as American as apple pie.

You don't need to separate from non-radical Islam. Separation isn't going to work for radical Islam. Just ask Israel. You can't build a wall high enough to keep out rockets.

I think that we should do what we did prior to the invasion of Iraq, but a little more diligently.

Intelligence is key. We need to do what we need to do to get as accurate as intelligence as possible since the radical organizations are all over the world.

Targeted military intervention based on intelligence. Would you blow up Chicago to eliminate the mob? Of course not.

Diplomacy with all foreign countries. No labeling people "evil" and saying "I'm not going to talk to you until you stop what you're doing." It doesn't work. Look at what's happened in North Korea. Negotiate with the moderates & do what needs to be done to strengthen the moderates. Give financial incentives for governments who are willing to work with us and toss the radicals. Didn't that help us in a few other mideastern countries?

I realize that intelligence can fail as seen in Iraq. But we have to remember that not everyone thought that Iraq was a "slam dunk" and many thought that we should do another weapon's inspection.

I say, with the exception of Iraq, that we stay the course while focusing on improving our intelligence networks.>

The Muslim threat to our civilization is not reducible to Al Qaeda. But keep in mind in any event -- 9/11 is what *a few renegades* could do when their civilization is weak.

As for the Japan comparison, it actually goes the other way. Given the distances, the state of transportation and technology at the time, and the different character (and character) of the American populace, the Japanese military was never a mortal threat to Fortress America. It's only a matter of time before Islamist terror becomes a routine event in the US.>

The West cannot disengage from Islam because Islam will not allow the West to disengage. Islam seeks to conquer not only the West but the entire non-Islamic world by any means necessary and by every means available.

There is only one solution left, one that nobody wants to consider. But it will be the only viable one left after millions of Westerners have died in terrorist attacks.

Along the same lines, it is high time that the Catholic Church re-evaluate its relationship toward Islam. In Europe and the U.S., dioceses and archdioceses are selling church properties to Muslims. Belgian bishops are allowing illegal Muslim immigrants to reside in their churches as squatters to pressure the government to grant them amnesty.

JPII's papacy was formidable in many areas but it was an unmitigated disaster with regard to Islam. His policy of de facto appeasement to prevent a "clash of civilizations" has merely served not only to accelerate that clash but to embolden the Muslims.

If Islam is Hitler (as it most assuredly is), then Catholicism is Petain.>

Rod, what do you mean Islam is only a mortal threat in its "current form"?
Are you assuming Al Qaeda and violent fundamentalist groups like these are "its current form," never mind all the rest of the Muslims in the world, such as those in America you feel sorry for since they apparently pose no threat? Ack. What kind of indepth analysis of a so-called threat is that?

Separationism is just another side of Islamophobism, based on fear and bigotry, which is nothing very new under the sun. The only anecdote is getting to know real Muslims, which means getting to know at least one in more depth than a chance meeting at a conference in which one or two give over a few usable quotes...if you know what I mean.>

The simple problem is that the terrorists are not misquoting nor mischaracterizing the text of the Koran. it does instruct them to commit themselves to jihad, and by the sword if needed. And most schools of Islam stress rote memorization rather than any interpretation of text,as Christian or Jewish theologians do. Worse, it seems clear based on every poll of Muslims living in the West that they identify and agree with the terrorists.

I see Sadr's miltia marching unopposed in Iraq, and it disgusts me. Bush had a chance 2 years ago to kill these animals and level Fallujah. To be, as Bin Laden would say, the strong horse to the Ilsamic world.That's war; if he wasn't prepared for that, he had no business undertaking it. And "talking" to Iran and Syria are not the actions of a strong horse. ANd instead he tried to fight a politically-correct war, which was simply retarded. I fear Bush has made things far worse. At this point 1 more American's blood is too much. Either fight a war or go home. And Bush didn't want to really fight.

And as to the Islamic world-we tried. We should disengage from these people as much as possible, and discourage any further immigration.How an oilman president hasn't made drilling domestically a priority is another embarrassment. Our war in Iraq has become tossing pearls, our best and brightest, to swine.>

Are the Islamists representative of Islam as a whole, or are they a minority? If the latter, then it is Islamism that we need to marginalize, not all of Islam.>

Jihad is in the Koran.

From www.Cair.com
What is Jihad?

"Jihad" does not mean "holy war." Literally, jihad means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., - having a standing army for national defense), or fighting against tyranny or oppression.

It's true that many in the mideast cheer when the west is hit by extremist Muslims. I think that it has less to do with the west being of a different religion and more to do with their perception of westerners as occupiers or oppressors.>

Peggy,

Sufism offers a meeting point between the traditions of Islam and Christianity. As you may or may not know the poetry of Rumi (in translation) is extraordinarily popular in the West, and it was so before 9/11.

My point here is that the hope for the future lies in building concensus from commonality outwards to push the radical further to the fringes. In that regard Sufism is a rich place to begin that process. Sufism as an esoteric branch of Islam was often brutally repressed because like any mystical way it represents a threat to the exoteric frame of religion.

The heat of religious and cultural collision is to some extent a necessary phenomena in our age of promimity. Tools such as an open Internet make it increasingly difficult for a community to retain isolation from the greater world. The walls of isolation collapse despite our wishes, and part of that entails people who are very uncomfortable with their religious and cultural identities changing at a rate which leaves them feeling threatened.

Someone like the Dali Llama may have some insight into this given the geographic and cultural isolation of Tibet in the past. Frankly, I think the Tibetans would have liked nothing better than to have maintained their religious and cultural isolation. Unfortunately the Chinese had other ideas. Still, I think the Dali Llama who embraces our modern technologies and is a leader of his people and culture may have some insight into how to cool the temperature of proximity.>

The best way to get those who have nefarious goals is by enforcing laws in the west that make it a crime to engage in terrorist plotting, and work with those in the mideast to obtain their assistance. It takes a good intelligence network and diplomacy.

watsy, what you you think we *have* been doing? Why do you think we cooperate with the Pakistanis and Saudis? Besides, do you seriously believe that no laws against terrorist plotting exist in this country? The problem isn't the lack of such laws; the problem is the ACLU's and CAIR's opposition to them.>

Militant Islam opposes freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and most of the freedoms we have. If we emulate militant Islam through limiting and expunging human rights, curtailing freedom, it has won the war even if they all lie dead before our feet.

This is not an end justifies the means war. It is a war that requires virtuous prosecution and compassion.

The lessons missed when the U.S. went to war with Iraq were several. First, do not start a second conflict when you have your hands full with the first one (Afghanistan). The U.S. should have stabilized Afghanistan and built it into a viable state before heading to Iraq. The second lesson, is that Iraq was contained, and Saddam was scarred in the buildup to the war. He could have been arm twisted into changes without overthrowing him at that time. The third lesson is that the U.S. went in with too light a force and not the overwhelming commitment to rebuild and reconstruct the country quickly. Build the infrastructure and get people working soon. Bush went in with a plan to win the immediate war but no plan to rebuild and stabilize Iraq. Now there is this quagmire from which no graceful exit is likely. It is ugly and there are not any obvious good ways out of it. Syria might be able to be brought on board, but Iran will be difficult, especially with the nutbar they have as Prime Minister. What a great bloody mess.>

Mr. D'Hippolito,

The ACLU represents people in the minority. If for, whatever reason, Islam did become strong in America, it would be the ACLU who would come to your defense.

My hope is that Islam in America is what CAIR says that it is. They are either the biggest bunch of liars on the face of the earth with a trojan horse agenda, or they are loyal Americans and patriots who are trying to provide room for peaceful Islam in this Republic through education and fighting discrimination.

I have to go with the latter until I have evidence of the former.>

That's some pretty powerful evidence, Matt.

It's my guess that the FBI is all over them. That's how it should be. Intelligence and evidence followed by arrest and prosecution.>

Too many frame the problem as an either/or construction. Either we begin deporting all muslims, cut off oil purchases from islamic states and bunker down for war, or we accept the inevitable, permanent growing presence of Islam and muslims in the west. Why is this so? Why are there only either/or alternatives? Assuming we agree that premises 1 through 4 do hold, at least to a large extent, can't we take some common sense, palliative measures in the short term that don't necessarily include the extremes (deportations, war, cessation of energy purchases from muslim states - an impossible and absurd proposition, being that oil is a fungible commodity- etc.). For instance, their is no recognized universal human right to emmigrate to whatever country one wishes. Sorry, this is just a fact of law and established morality. If the west completely shut down immigration from muslim countries for, say, the next 50 years we would go a good way towards solivng most of the problems we have with Islam. AFter 50 years we could sit back and then determine if Islam has managed to moderate itself to some degree in its posture towards the west. The presence of muslims in the west is not now so large that the west's future is stricty determined by this islamic presence, but if current immigration trends continue, within 50 years it will be so.

It seems to me that those who frame the problem in either/or scenarios are not serious about solving the problem. They, in fact, don't want it solved. They fear commonsensical, moderate resolve, because they know it will succeed, so they always propose these drastic, extreme scenarios, as a spur to inaction. Are we foolish to take the bait that they lay out for us? Our Islam problem is actually quite simple to solve: just cut off the source from whence the problem arises. Islam will wither and palliate itself for no other reason than that it must in order to survive as a minority creed in a western society. Simple solutions, why can't it be acted upon?>

At this time, espousing a separation seems so radical, and rather inhumane. Mr. Dreher and others shrink back from the concluding point #5 because it seems a terrible, and inhumane, thing to do. It seems radical, almost like a global apartheit. But if Mr. Dreher and those other humane people were to talk to the young women in Oslo who dye their hair dark in an attempt to avoid rape, or to the Swedes of Malmo who are moving out of their own city because they are tired of being robbed and of the "no-go" zone, or to many, many others who have found they simply can not live in peace when the number of Moslems in their midst crosses some threshold...perhaps they would reconsider. There already exists in Europe two cultures, one embracing the Enlightenment, the other clinging to Sharia. This pattern is emerging in the US, too. Why Islam is what it is fills many books, some of them over a century old. But it is, indeed, what it is, and all the Rumi-poetry will not change the unpleasant reality of Koran, Hadith, and Suna. Yes, there are humane Moslems; I know some of them. But to the degree that a Moslem becomes humane, he or she becomes less and less of a Moslem. The reverse is also true; one who clings to the Koran in its literal, never-to-be-altered way, and to the Hadith, and to the life of Mohammed, becomes less and less humane to those that are not fellow Moslems. The history is there, for those who choose to look at it.

Looking at the demographic trends, and the cultural trends, reading what the Jihad supporters believe and why they believe it, I come to the conclusion that in 25 years or less, either there will be separation, or there will be a war without mercy fought on every continent except Antarctica. At that point, separationism will be seen as the lukewark, "squishy" and humane alternative, I fear.>

The comment above pretty much sums up my opinion. I only half-jokingly suggest that we trade Israel for peace -- let all of the Israel Jews immigrate here and give up Israel and, in return, force all of the Muslims currently in this country to emmigrate to the new "Palestine." Then disengage from the Middle East and Muslim world (except to the extent that either of us wishes to be trading partners) with the parting warning that any "mischief-making" on the part of Islamic radicals will be met with the swiftest and ugliest of punishment.>