Dildos versus scimitars

What's the spiritual and moral basis for resisting radical Islam? The values of the Enlightenment, values that have created pretty much all that is worthwhile in Western Civilization for the past 200 years, certainly come to mind.

Regarding your excess of Islam vs. excess of hedonism question, while I'm not aware of an Islamic society collapsing due to the excess of Islam (though one might argue that the anarchy of Taliban-era Afghanistan is such an example), I'm also not aware of one collapsing from hedonism, particularly from hedonism of the secular democratic variety, since that sort of a society is fairly new on the global stage. And, no, citing the fall of Rome or Athens or some nonsense like that (examples that social conservatives love to hype, despite the lack of evidence to prove their assertions and mainly because such examples inevitably get blamed on teh gayz) doesn't support that contention.

Look, radical Islamism is a serious threat in the world today, but it seems your main goal is to force a false choice, namely that of conservative Christianity vs. radical Islam. Sorry, there are more cultural options on the table than that, and the secular Enlightenment cultural option is a much better one than either of those two.

Since we are asking questions, here's two. Why is it that traditional Muslims (radical or not) are more concerned about their children converting to Western ways than Westerners are concerned about their children converting to Islam? Also, why is it that in terms of immigration, lots of people want to move to the West and join in with Western culture (at least in the culturally liberal urban areas of the West), but few if any people want to emigrate to the Islamic world? The answers are related, and have as much to do with cultural vitality and the recognition of which society is expanding, bringing in more people into its orbit and is likely to be dictating the terms of the future as such answers have to do with wealth and economics (which are themselves derivative of the aforementioned cultural vitality). I'm betting on the USA and the West. That's historically been a wise bet.

It will probably look as though it is recovering from a war. Western populations will take a lot, but when it comes to lossing freedoms to fascist of whaterever stripe they don't roll over so easily.

Assume the worst. Islamist take over they rule with an iron fist, Saudi style punishments come out, horrible yes, but sometimes it takes the worst case scenario to bring out the best.

Ultimately the Danes are better at taking care of their neighbors than the minorities they are currently hosting and I do expect a Danish backlash for the ungrateful responses they gotten, don't ask to live in anothers house and ignore the house rules.

PD James

The Children of Men.

The book, not the gutless (if high quality) movie.

No more children and porn has lost its sacramental power. The Church of England is baptizing dolls.

Chilling.

Ask yourself: how many Islamic societies have collapsed from an excess of Islam?

That depends on how you define collapse. But if Afghanistan under the Taliban is not an example of a collapsed society, I don't know what is.

Spartans were pro -choice? Doubt it as they tended to see their women as property useful for breeding and caring for the homestead while they were fighting. O, the people watching the movie believe all problems will be solved by abortion? OK Ill go re-read the major democratic candidates policy position and see if I missed something. Dont really go to the movies much anyway so Ill have to take your word for it. Son and I spent the early afternoon discussing The Screwtape Letters which is more fun the most movies.

Seriously, I feel sorry for the Dutch but in 50 years they will be underwater so that is how their landscape will look. Even more seriously, I believe in the concept of freedom of religion in our country. It is something worth fighting over. Islam poses a real problem with this idea. Islam by tis very nature, especially for Shiites, is intricately bound with politics and law.

Most people dont read much about Islam but if you get a chance just look up Taqleed and ijtihad. Many muslims beleive in a religion that looks entirely backwards. All the big questions in the world have been answered and there is no room for new thinking. When I look at this and the intertwining of religion and law
I wonder if Islam is truly compatible with our country. There is no serious dialogue about this. On the left we get "Muslims are no different than we are". On the right we get some version of "they are all evil so kill em all".

Most Muslims are decent people who believe in much of the same things we do. Go read the blogs of the reporters and troops in Iraq. On a person to person level they are good folk. My experience in Saudi Arabia was the same. Without demonizing them lets acknowledge this very basic difference we have. Its time to stop ignoring this and let Muslims know they may worship freely but our law is the law in our country. If they do not wish to abide by this they may leave.

Steve

If Google search trends are any indication, the Dildo may in fact be Mightier than the Sword:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Sex

Those aren't much in the way of answers, M_David.

The reason that Muslims are concerned about their kids becoming Westernized when the reverse isn't generally true is because it's a helluva lot more common for Muslims to become Westernized/secularized than for Westerners to become Muslims, Daniel Larison's youthful indiscretions notwithstanding. They see us as an entity that can convert their children, while we don't see them as such. Both are correct.

Also, while the numbers of Muslims in Europe are growing as a percentage of population, it remains to be seen if that trend will continue. I suspect that if it does continue and Muslims don't assimilate into the regular population, then life will become much harder for them. Europe doesn't exactly have a long history of friendliness toward unpopular religious minorities, and as the cultural cringe left over from two world wars fades, attitudes may change as well. We shall see.

As far as your immigration example goes, the example fails. Europeans came here to join the burgeoning North American culture, as non-Europeans do today, because that culture was and remains the strong horse in the world. The only cultures that might give us some competition on that point are in East Asia, which is neither Christian nor Islamic. In any case, I'm not seeing people climbing all over themselves to move to Saudi Arabia or North Africa, and that might tell you something about where the action is and will continue to be.

I'm wondering, Do people understand the whole push of Cyberterrorism?
The actual factual policies undertaken to corrupt America from within -by foreign terrorists AND foreign governments.

I was at a meeting of small ISP providers a couple of years back and I heard speakers from a specialized Federal security task force at Dartmouth. It's really sobering. Foreign governments have agents dedicated full time, not only to cracking into small utilities, water systems, powerplants but also into creating cyberporn.

This is the biggest challenge facing America's children. AND soooo many parents are oblivious. The stories that are being swept under the rug by local high schools are at the least shocking. HS Seniors seeking revenge by blanketing the HS with porn, hiding it in the library stacks, teacher's printers. 12 yr old girls bringing disgusting stuff they've found up to their teachers. And Lots of people thinking it's all a big joke.

Porn is so readily available to teens and preteens. An Orlando HS just made the news this week for Cell-porn. The updated versions of GameBoys come equipped with wireless connections. Are there even filters available for these Cell phones or games if parents wanted to install them? It is completely out of control.

The State of Maine issues each middle schooler their own fully filtered laptop. This is much better than the open lines most laptops open their kids up to. I'm reminded of the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil with the Internet's Evil-side being completely unchecked.

Priests tell me, people have NO IDEA how many young people are dealing with porn addictions. It's serious. Putting this garbage in the hands of 12 and 13 year old boys. And it's the GOAL of Foreign nationals. Americans need to be made more aware.

God save our boys.

"Dildos versus scimitars"???

How many have died at the hands of a dildo-brandishing person? A scimitar-brandishing one?

Just asking.

I remember watching broadcast TV one weeknight there about 10 years ago, and being shocked to see in prime time the kind of material that one only sees on HBO late at night in the US.

I assume you were in a hotel, since you do not, so far as I know, maintain a residence in the Netherlands.

My husband and I won a "silent auction" at our Berkeley grandson's elementary school last year: the prize was a weekend at a very nice, quite expensive Berkeley hotel, on the water. (How to get away without having to drive.) So we went.

My husband perused the TV catalog, and found that about half of it was hard-core pornography. But of course you had to pay extra.

So....the difference boils down to, the porn you saw in Amsterdam was included in the price of the room, whereas the porn in the hotel in Berkeley was extra.

I am quite unable to discern a moral difference here.

Borges didn't write novels -- he wrote short stories ("ficciones" in Spanish) as dense in a few pages as hundreds of pages of a novel.

Why is no one noting the obvious conclusion (or at least question) here -- that the conflict between Muslim immigrants and native Dutch may be stronger BECAUSE of the licentiousness of the society?

Believe me, I'd choose the dildo over the scimitar any day. (And I'm as small "c" conservative personally as I am big "L" Liberal politically.) But it may be the dildoes that are helping provoke the wielding of verbal scimitars in Holland.

Not that conflicts don't exist in less sexually permissive European countries (at least by degree) as well, of course.

ie. It's not just the Netherlands problem. And our own backyards could use a little attention.

Larry, do you think that the conflict between the Muslim immigrants and the native Dutch being stronger is a bad thing? The jihadists are doing the Dutch a favor by waking them up before they get into too deep a demographic hole.

the hand that holds the dildo can also hold a gun. The Dutch have not been a serious power since the British beat them in 1654. We are a different breed and the sexual decadents have well stocked gun cabinets.

Look! It's Rampant Rabbit with a Ruger!

Susan: "What exactly is anyone supposed to do about this alleged threat from Islam? Shoot all Muslims in the US? (The Dutch have their own problems, which they will solve in their own way.) What will our other freedoms look like after we hunt these folks down? Senator McCarthy presented us with the same dilemma in the 1950's. When is the cure worse than the disease?

Or is this just like nuclear holocaust, you can't do anything about it, but it feels good (sort of) to get all excited?"

I keep wondering about that myself. I think that it boils down to the fact that conservatism needs an enemy. Communism was the enemy, but once it was defeated the search began for a new one. Radical Islamic terrorists were a natural for this role, perhaps even more so than the Soviet and Chinese communists.

In "1984" the leaders of Oceania continually flip-flopped on who the enemy was. One day it was Eurasia, and the next it was Eastasia. An enemy was necessary for the government of Oceania to keep the masses in a state of loyalty to the government.

Conservatism, like the EngSoc of Orwell's "1984," requires an enemy in order to maintain control. Without an enemy the voters begin to rebel against the legalism that always accompanies a conservative movement, especially when it is wed to a religious movement as it is here in the US.

This is why conservatives so desperately want us to be in a state of panic against the radical Muslims who stand at our very door and threaten us. You have noted, as have I, that no solution to the problem is ever put forward. All that is mentioned is the constant presence of the Islamic "boogey man." Fear...no solutions, no policy pronouncements, just fear.

That is the goal, for a population that is in fear for its safety will give up its liberty in the attempt to preserve safety. We saw this in the months after 9/11, and we will continue to see it. Some on the liberal side suggest that the Bush administration will begin announcing more and more terror alerts as the elections grow closer, all for the purpose of influencing the electorate to vote Republican.

Conservatism...even the crunchy kind...needs an enemy. Without an enemy there is no lever with which to move the electorate.

M_David: "Yet by 2000, the West is now only 1/5 of world population. In only 50 years! Now well below replacement TFR and dropping in population every year, the West is embracing the largest extinction of any racial group in raw numbers the world has ever seen. And yet...nothing happened? A full-blown world war or plague couldn't do this kind of damage."

Did you ever consider that this may simply be God, or karma, repaying the West for what happened to the aboriginal peoples in the land in which we expanded into over the past 400 years? Certainly there was little thought to displacing whole groups of people as the United States fulfilled its "manifest destiny" and moved to the west.

Perhaps the Bible is right, and the sins of the fathers are being visited on the sons, and the grandsons, down through the generations.

Susan: "What exactly is anyone supposed to do about this alleged threat from Islam? Shoot all Muslims in the US?"

I have said before what I would like to happen. Something along these lines:
1. Remove all Muslims from the West. This could be achieved simply by enforcing existing laws, with only a moderate amount of violence. Islam is intrinsically illegal.
2. Separate from the Muslim countries as far as possible.
3. Bomb anyone who seems to be developing nukes.

Another optimistic feasibility is to encourage the de-Islamification of Muslim people and society. Soft power. Celebrate old Iranian culture. Support Ali Sina. That sort of thing.

I don't think those are going to happen, though. I'm no prophet, but what I think more likely is something along these lines:

There is a nuclear terrorist attack on a European capital, with more than a million dead, and refugees fleeing all over Europe. Within hours, pogroms of Muslim communities break out in towns throughout Europe. All the Muslim-owned guns then come out of the woodwork, and there are massacres of non-Muslims. Factions of the police and army respond by massacring Muslims, and all European governments fall over within a week. Within two months the gas-chambers are up and running. Russia has already seen the green light and started industrialised extermination of Muslims, and China follows suit. India expels all its Muslims; 200 million boat people in the Indian Ocean. Pakistan drops a crude nuclear bomb on an Indian city, and India and China respond with nuclear and chemical bombing of Pakistan and Afghanistan amounting to almost complete extermination. Arab armies finally defeat Israel, and the Israelis are driven into the sea, mostly fleeing to Europe and then the USA. The USA responds by nuking half a dozen Arab cities. Australia sees which way the wind is blowing, gets nukes, and may use them against Indonesia. Plagues and famines break out throughout the Middle East, and hordes of refugees tip into the Mediterranean, to be met by nerve gas. China occupies Central Asia, and simply drives the population out at gunpoint, to be replaced by Chinese. The refugees tip into Iran, already reeling from famine and nuclear fallout, and are killed en masse. The USA occupies the main oil areas of the Middle East, and, after some attempts at humane behaviour, loses patience, and follows the Chinese example, simply driving the populations out.

Larry:

I didn't mean the jihadists would wake the Dutch up into propagating more. I meant the conflict would wake the Dutch up into not accepting any more Muslim immigrants and hopefully even expelling the Muslims that are already there. I see nothing wrong in the Dutch having a k-strategy of investing a lot in fewer children as opposed to the Muslim r-strategy of breeding like rats.

Holland will wind up in the same situation as Kosovo, another creidt to the Clinton administration. The same thing could happen to parts of the US. If enough illegal or legal immigrants populate a section of a nation, they can appeal to the United Nations for ownership of said geographical area no matter how much the historical owners of the land oppose it. If the Clintons are in office and need to wag the dog again, aliens unite!!!

"Mr Wilders aims to show that the experiment has failed and that one of the ingredients in our system of freedom of religion - either the liberalism or the pluralism - is going to have to go."

Taking Mr. Wilders' concept and applying it to our country, which aspect of religious freedom do you folks believe we need to sacrifice in order to maintain our safety? Should we seek to amend the Constitution to "rewrite" the First Amendment to proscribe which religions should not enjoy the "freedom of exercise" we have come to accept as a given?

BTW...I appreciate Rombald for putting forward some ideas for discussion. I have heard many, MANY conservatives bemoan the problem with seemingly endless anecdotes about honor killings, jihadists, etc., but Rombald is one of the first to put forward some concrete ideas on how to deal with it. While I may well disagree with his positions, I admire his courage in putting them forward. He, unlike many conservatives, is not afraid to say what is truly behind the anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment that is so widely expressed in conservative political circles.

Do any of you other conservatives here wish to expound on what portions of the Constitution should be curtailed to protect our country from these Muslim religious extremists that are behind every corner of our nation?

Did you ever consider that this may simply be God, or karma, repaying the West for what happened to the aboriginal peoples in the land in which we expanded into over the past 400 years? Certainly there was little thought to displacing whole groups of people as the United States fulfilled its "manifest destiny" and moved to the west.

Perhaps the Bible is right, and the sins of the fathers are being visited on the sons, and the grandsons, down through the generations.

Funny, isn't it, how to Leftists collective responsibility only ever applies to Europeans. I would take this 'sins of the fathers' schtick more seriously if people like you weren't always desperately wriggling to absolve the Vibrant Ones of any collective guilt. "Don't you see that most Muslims are wonderful people guilty only of wanting to share falafel and hugs blah blah blah and who are you to say that they bear any responsibilities for the actions of people who just happen to share their religion?"

hmm: "Funny, isn't it, how to Leftists collective responsibility only ever applies to Europeans. I would take this 'sins of the fathers' schtick more seriously if people like you weren't always desperately wriggling to absolve the Vibrant Ones of any collective guilt. "Don't you see that most Muslims are wonderful people guilty only of wanting to share falafel and hugs blah blah blah and who are you to say that they bear any responsibilities for the actions of people who just happen to share their religion?""

Equally funny is the belief that seems to be so common among conservatives that the past has no effect on current events. The events in the Middle East from 75 years ago could not possibly have any impact on how Muslims in that region today look at us, or so goes the conservative worldview. The manipulation of the borders in that region, the aftermath of colonialism, the support of puppet dictators during the Cold War era, none of this could possibly be influencing the people of that region and their view of the West.

It's much simpler to say that they hate us because of our freedom, or because of our licentious nature toward morality, or because of our democratic values.

Such is the way of modern conservatism. Not only does it require that old newspaper articles go down the "memory hole," it also requires that anyone suggesting that there once was a time when we supported some of the very forces we now oppose be labeled as counter to the common good.

So, who is our enemy today, hmm? Eurasia or Eastasia?

Rombald: "1. Remove all Muslims from the West. This could be achieved simply by enforcing existing laws, with only a moderate amount of violence. Islam is intrinsically illegal."

ds0490: "I assume that you would include the nearly 3 million Muslims who are citizens of the US in this scenario. How would you get past that nasty little document called the US Constitution? After all, the founders gave these citizens certain rights, even as they practice what you would call an "illegal" religion."

Rombald: "Europe and the USA already have good laws against paedophilia, rape, murder, etc. Enforcement within the Muslim community would render Islam illegal. Muslims would then have the choices of emigration, apostasy and armed revolt. My guess is that only a smallish minority would take the last option, and could be dealt with militarily."

So in your view the Muslim religion is characterized by paedophilia, rape and murder. An interesting conclusion. On what do you base this assessment, and how do you compare it with the instance of paedophilia in the Catholic church?

Rombald: "3. Bomb anyone who seems to be developing nukes."

ds0490: "OK...that puts us on course to bomb the following countries: India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Libya, and possibly Saudi Arabia. Would you use nuclear or conventional bombing?"

Rombald: "I would favour precision bombing as far as possible. India and Israel are not Muslim."

But both India and Israel have rapidly growing Muslim minorities within their borders. In the case of Israel there is concern that the higher birth rate of Muslims will lead to the nation losing its Jewish distinctiveness in as little as 50 years. And India is struggling internally with tension between Muslim and Hindu groups. There will come a time, if current trends continue, that the nukes currently held by India might come under the control of a Muslim-led government, or a Hindu-Muslim leadership sharing arrangement.

You also realize that as we bomb these countries they will retaliate, just as we would if a foreign power were to bomb our nation. What do you see as the chances of one of the nuclear powers in the region (Pakistan, most likely) using their nukes in retaliation to our attacks? Which ally of ours do you see as their most likely target?

ds0: "So in your view the Muslim religion is characterized by paedophilia, rape and murder. An interesting conclusion. On what do you base this assessment, and how do you compare it with the instance of paedophilia in the Catholic church?"

Sharia permits men to marry 9-year-old girls, on the example of Muhammad. It actually gets worse than that, but I'll spare the vile details. Well, I've got no time for the Catholic church. However, the paedophilia there seems to have occurred due to the cowardliness of the hierarchy willing to turn a blind eye. I dare say it is not helped by the requirement for priestly celibacy, but you're not seriously going to tell me that Catholicism #approves# of paedophilia?

Muhammad was a rapist. Even apart from his 9-year-old bride Aisha, he raped Safia, an adult, the day after killing her husband and relatives. SHaria approves the rape of captive non-Muslims.

As for murder, just read the Koran.

"What about Israel, who depends on a US presence in the region for security? Would you suggest we simply leave them to their own defense?"

Well, I certainly think the pro-Israel lobby is part of the problem. It keeps an unnecessary involvement in the region. It also supplies the only example in which the Muslims are actually in the right, and thus allows maintenance of the moral high ground in that respect.

"And India is struggling internally with tension between Muslim and Hindu groups. There will come a time, if current trends continue, that the nukes currently held by India might come under the control of a Muslim-led government, or a Hindu-Muslim leadership sharing arrangement. "

What India does is up to them. Certainly, India's problem with Islam shows the way the West is heading. How would YOU avoid that fate? I'm trying to propose a practical way of separating from Islam. Actually, as I made clear in my original post, I don't think it's going to happen, and the future is going to be far, far bloodier.

Susan: "I keep wondering about that myself. I think that it boils down to the fact that conservatism needs an enemy. Communism was the enemy, but once it was defeated the search began for a new one. Radical Islamic terrorists were a natural for this role, perhaps even more so than the Soviet and Chinese communists. "

What makes you lable me as a conservative? I certainly wouldn't describe myself in those terms. Actually, back pre-1989, I thought the USSR was preferable to the USA. Admittedly, I was young then, and I don't think history really justifies such a position. However, I think Islam is a completely different issue from Marxism.

Susan: "Those of you who are either old enough to remember or who read history know that this argument, precisely, was made against the boogie man of International Communism. Really, it's kind of eerie, because all you have to do is change the name of the enemy, and you're right back in 1950."

Actually, if you look at the history of the conservative movement from the post WWII era you see a pattern that even the most myopic pundit cannot ignore. Communism gives way to Islamic extremism, with a short stop at liberalism and it's two threats: abortion and homosexuality, thrown in for good measure.

There are three books I read annually, usually around this time of year, to remind me of the problems with a mindset that would sacrifice liberty for safety. These are:

"Anthem", by Ayn Rand
"1984", by George Orwell
"The Giver", by Lois Lowry

The continual siren call of "beware the enemy" is conservatism's greatest weapon, for it motivates fear in those who will listen. Fear becomes the tool by which conservatives maintain power, and anything or anyone who challenges that instilled fear becomes an enemy.

And the suggestion that our nation's actions in the past may have, in some way, contributed to the actions of Muslim radicals is thoughtcrime in the conservative worldview. To them the United States can do no wrong, and any action that we take is always, forever and ever, for the better. To question our support of totalitarian regimes in the past (the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc.) is to suggest that we may have somehow helped create the climate in which religious extremism could gain a toehold within that region. And as any conservative will tell you, that is the "blame America first" attitude of defeatism in the face of the enemy, and it cannot be tolerated.

Larry Parker: "What good does it do us to "preserve" our freedom if we destroy it in the process? Unless, of course, the nihilistic answer is that it is somehow "too late" for freedom and that totalitarianism to match that in so many Muslim countries is the only way to fight fire with fire."

It sounds too much like the argument from the Vietnam era that we had to destroy the village to save it. In essence it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1) Conservatives claim that (insert enemy here) is a threat to our way of life, our liberties, and our very existence. They claim that if the enemy is successful we will see our liberties eliminated.

2) Conservatives (and their allies) advocate for a curtailing of liberties in the name of safety. The citizenry, believing that their leadership sees a problem they cannot (or in reaction to an attack or perceived attack) calls for the adoption of these curtailments. Those who oppose them are cast as enemies of liberty, justice and the American Way, and are labeled as enablers of (insert enemy here).

3) With these liberties curtailed (insert enemy here) has effectively won the first battle without firing a shot...or even knowing that they were in conflict with us in the first place.

4) Questions raised down the road about the effectiveness of these curtailments are met with accounts of the number of attacks thwarted by them (of course, no evidence is provided to support this) and the specter of future attacks is raised, invoking fear to quell such questions. (Insert enemy here) remains as an active threat, and we must be vigilant.

And such continues the cycle.

And Susan, I wasn't in a hotel, I was in the home of some dear friends. As I keep saying over and over again, I've been going to Holland regularly since 1984, visiting friends. (Though I haven't been since 2002; too expensive to travel with all these children).

I hope your friends weren't letting their kids watch this stuff, just as I hope my kids here in the US are policing their kids' internet usage.

You're an adult, so you can watch porn if you want to. Here or in the Netherlands, same difference. It's not hard to access in either place, as you point out.

My experiences in the Netherlands don't exactly hit me in the face with "sexuality" - in fact the place seems just a bit stodgy to this American. (The suspicious-looking old couples sitting in their super-neat living rooms by night with all the curtains open so they can supervise the neighborhood and so everyone can supervise them...)

All the ills of Dutch society, to wit, prostitution, pornography, drug use and the like, are quite common and quite up-front (though "illegal") where I live in the US.

Susan: "All the ills of Dutch society, to wit, prostitution, pornography, drug use and the like, are quite common and quite up-front (though "illegal") where I live in the US."

A conservative mind must be a terribly weak mind. Otherwise why would conservatives complain about the availability of such things as pornography on the Internet or on CATV? Our CATV system (which is also our Internet provider) has several stations that carry pornographic movies. To obtain these movies I must purchase them through the interface on my television. In other words, I must choose to watch them. They do not jump out at me from my television unannounced (absent a hardware or software failure of some sort).

Also, my CATV box and my television come with two very important devices to help me control what comes from them. The first is a parental control device (a PIN number in the case of the CATV box, and the V-Chip in the case of the television). The second is the on-off switch. I believe that both of these are standard equipment nowadays, and are very easy to use.

So for these complaining conservatives to experience pornography they must undergo some sort of mind control that forces them to purchase it on CATV. That or the mindset must lead to such an addictive behavior on the part of its adherents that they become too weak to resist the temptation to buy the pornography.

This is why conservatives rail against the CHOICE we have to watch or not watch pornographic content on our television. They are too weak to resist watching it, so they only way they can avoid it is if they cannot choose it. Thus, NOBODY should have the choice, lest they find it in their neighbor's home somehow and give in to its lure therein.

Personal responsibility used to be a mantra of conservatism. Apparently that only applies to others folks, not themselves.

ds0490,

"So for these complaining conservatives to experience pornography they must undergo some sort of mind control that forces them to purchase it on CATV."

"an addictive behavior on the part of its adherents that they become too weak to resist the temptation to buy the pornography"

Brilliant observations. Conservatives seem to want to (need to?) control MANY of the choices other people have.

"ds0: To what extent are such practices observed within the Muslim community in the West? Have there been reliable reports of such marriages, or of multiple marriages?"

As for paedophilia, several Muslim organisations in the UK are now campaigning for Sharia family law to apply to Muslims, which would permit prepubescent marriage.

As for other marriage-related crimes, just read a few newspapers. In the UK, the majority, or certainly a large minority, of Muslim marriages are forced.

It really is not possible to be an orthodox Muslim, and to obey the law of a Western country. In the UK, simply enforcing ordinary laws on Muslims would force them to make radical decisions about their position here.

"A reading of the Bible could also permit similar marriages in the example of Mary and Joseph (by some scholar's accounts Mary was but 12 years old at the time of her marriage to a much older Joseph). Similarly the example of David and his multiple marriages could be taken as permission for similar marriages here.
One could make the same claim for the Bible. God authorized the blatant murder of women and children, even the infant and unborn, during the taking of the Holy Lands by Israel. Should we condemn all of Christendom because of this? "

These examples really do scrape the barrel. The murders and polygamy in the Bible are OT. Look, I don't believe in the NT, but my objection is factual rather than moral. I understood that Mary was meant to be 14, which is clearly above puberty (not that I particularly approve of the marriage of 14-year-olds). In any case, Christianity has separation of church and state, so canon law is not state law, whereas Islam does not make that distinction.

Some Christian out there defend this obvious distinction??

"So you are in favor of abandoning Israel and leaving them to fend for themselves?"

I would say yes, although I suppose the situation would be different if Israel were a normal country.

ds0490
Conservatism...even the crunchy kind...needs an enemy. Without an enemy there is no lever with which to move the electorate.

There's a reason for that, but I'm loathe to discuss it here because it will upset most of the board. But here goes, let's see if I upset so many people that I get in trouble:

Basically, conservativism is a very watered-down version of fascism. Or, rather, the other way around. It is a reaction to change, and it's a worship of 'the old ways'. And it needs an enemy. It needs a villain who is changing things, and it needs them to have an evil motive.

Right _now_, parts of conservativism in the US has managed to slip almost entirely into fascism, replacing 'worship of the past' with 'worship of the current leader'. And the attendant lawlessness and chanting of slogans and permanent war all that entails. At least with worship of the past, in this country, things like the bill of rights and rule of law were included as part of 'the past'.

But even perfectly normal conservativism requires some generic reason to oppose change, and that reason is going to be a) the worship of the past, a hearkening to good old days, and b) the changes are promoted by an evil enemy intent on undermining everything good and pure.

Some amount of both of those reasons have some validity. For example, there is, indeed, a 'homosexual conspiracy' attempting to...equalize their status with straights. In plain sight, so it's not really a 'conspiracy'. But it gets ascribed much more sinister motives than it actually has, which basically is 'gay marriage' and 'coverage under existing equal rights laws'. It doesn't want to 'recruit' or whatever the current slander is anymore than left-handed people do.

But most of them enemies are total crap. Hollywood, as an example, has absolutely no motives at all except to make money. Individuals may have an agenda, but considering that everything in Hollywood ends up being filtered through a dozen different people, it's questionable how much those agendas actually are expressed. It might be a 'force for evil', but it's not an organized or even deliberate one.

And likewise Democrats are not in charge of the changing social norms in this country. I point to the 1968 DNC and the Vietnam war as evidence of that. Changing social norms attempt to drag the Democrats along, not the other way around.

As for how much the better the past was: A large reason for that was financial security provided by companies that valued workers, that gave them health care and played fair with unions and didn't outsource their jobs. People had steady jobs, in one place, their entire life, with everything they needed even after they retired. Even if they got seriously ill. Of course families stayed together.

A huge cause of the current levels of divorce and broken families are due to financial considerations. Companies decided to not offer health care, or picked an insurer that pretends to offer health care but actually denies everyone's claims, or just up and moved the factory to Mexico, or robbed the pension fund, or just not offered pensions, or slashed their workforce in half, targeting the older workers who had higher pay.

Yet I see no condemnation on the right of any of those changes by companies. Why? Because, in conservativism's 'us vs. them' mindframe, it is important to pick a 'them' that is invulnerable. If you pick a villain you actually can defeat, people will expect you do to so.(1)

So, because it would be trivial to actually force companies to provide for their employees, and near impossible to fix marriage by ranting about 'societal immorality', they pick the later.

And 'abortion', another invulnerable enemy, although at this point the religious right has had it up to here with 'conservatives' who can't seem to gain an inch of ground. (35 years, people. By this election, it will have been enough time to conceive, birth, and raise a president.)

Likewise the rather inane issue of them ranting about societal problems with Muslims in Europe. Nice untouchable villain you've picked there, people thousands of miles away. I guess you'll give them the finger-wagging of a lifetime.

1) This, incidentally, explains the reverence toward Reagan, someone who actually 'did defeat' an invulnerable enemy, communism. (Although he didn't really.)

Rod,

"Liberals want to control society's behavior too; they tend to draw the line in different places, is all. Liberals (in general) are fine with porn, but will rush to the barricades to defend "hate speech" laws."

As you know, I live in Canada. Our hate speech laws mirror those of Beliefnet's own Rules of conduct. So is B'net now "liberal"???

I do not wish to "control society's behaviour" beyond the extent of when such behaviour impinges on my own rights and freedoms for then I no longer HAVE rights and freedoms.

There's no such thing as "free speech" - it comes with a great cost, often measurable in people's lives.

Your response to: "Personal responsibility used to be a mantra of conservatism. Apparently that only applies to others folks, not themselves." was "Weak. Some things are so taboo they shouldn't be left up to the individual to choose."

I don't agree that the argument put forth was "weak". Those things that are "so taboo" most likely involve harm to others. No one has that "right", and may I humbly propose that harm be the delineation point?

Rod: "It's not a question of whether or not some practices ought to be banned for everyone. Very few people are purely anarcho-libertarian. The question is only where one draws the line. The argument you want to have is over the morality of pornography, which is a good argument to have. The argument that conservatives want to control people's behavior while liberals do not is groundless, and silly. Liberals want to control society's behavior too; they tend to draw the line in different places, is all. Liberals (in general) are fine with porn, but will rush to the barricades to defend "hate speech" laws. I fail to spot the philosophical difference, at least in terms of personal liberty."

Actually, Rod, that would be exactly what the official you mention in your post is proposing. He is proposing that no more Muslims be allowed to immigrate, and that no more mosques be built. Given that I would assume that he is also proposing that no more Dutch citizens convert to Islam. By implication he is saying that all Muslims are a detriment to the country.

Likewise there is Rombald, who has put forward the idea that Muslims need to be removed from western nations, either through incentives, disincentives or military force. Again, this is a rather absolutist position, wouldn't you agree?

And what of the collective amnesia of conservatives regarding past western policies that many Muslims view as having harmed their culture, their way of life? Do we discount that simply because it does not fit with the theme of defining Islam as the next "Red Scare"?

Your consistent posting of Muslims behaving badly in an effort to justify your position that Islam is somehow a deficient religion begs the question...how do you propose we stop it? Which of Rombald's proposals do you see as being worth implementing, or do you have another plan?

Or are you simply raising an alarm for the sake of raising it?

Rombald: "Who actually wants to impose the Old Testament as civil law? Half a dozen reconstructionists and the Chabad Lubavitsch."

Anyone who points to the Bible as a guide for moral conduct, and then posits that because of that the law needs to reflect "God's Word" has made a case for imposing the OT as civil law in most cases. The reason for that is because so much of the moral teachings contained in the Bible had there genesis in the OT portion. What happened in the NT was primarily a correction of the legalistic approach to these laws that had become the accepted norm in Jewish society of the time. And clear moral teaching in the NT is based on OT law.

Huckabee said that he would like to see the US Constitution amended to better reflect his interpretation of God's teachings on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. It is impossible to find a passage in the Bible speaking on these issues that is not grounded in a portion of the OT law. Even the clobber passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians refer to law that was established in the OT.

For a Christian to say "that's in the Old Testament" is simply a dodge. Very little of the moral law that was set forward in the OT was repealed in the NT. Ceremonial law, yes. Moral law...virtually none.

John E: "If I were in the UK, I'd be worried about that. Since I'm not..."

Give it 10 years!

ds0490: "Anyone who points to the Bible as a guide for moral conduct, and then posits that because of that the law needs to reflect "God's Word" has made a case for imposing the OT as civil law in most cases."

Rod: "Huh? 'Splain that massive logical leap."

The explanation is in the rest of my post, Rod. Did you bother to read it?

"The reason for that is because so much of the moral teachings contained in the Bible had there genesis in the OT portion. What happened in the NT was primarily a correction of the legalistic approach to these laws that had become the accepted norm in Jewish society of the time. And clear moral teaching in the NT is based on OT law."

Abortion, homosexuality, sexual conduct, theft...nearly every personal moral teaching that Christians ascribe to the NT is actually based on a teaching in the OT. Even Jesus admitted this himself.

When Mike Huckabee said he would like to see the Constitution changed to better reflect God's teachings on homosexuality and abortion, he was making an appeal to moral teachings that had their origins in the OT. That was where God first taught these things to his people.

(What's strange is that he has not been attacked by conservatives for "cherry picking" Scriptures. The Bible contains more about money and the poor than it does about sexual morality and abortion. Why is he not suggesting that the Constitution be amended to reflect God's teachings on the poor, or on greed?)

"Muslims are not "breeding like rats." They are breeding at the natural rates for humans based upon biology. In fact, America's a few generations ago used to have the highest breeding rates ever in world history, putting the Muslims to shame."

M_david, you are right. I was getting emotional and conflating the quantity of people being bred with the quality of people being bred.

>>>
And someone please tell me how, exactly, will we or any other western country go about maintaining a functioning liberal democracy when a significant portion of the population constantly resorts to violence and threats of violence whenever anyone criticises it, decides to leave it, resists its wishes, etc., etc.
Posted by: Lynn | January 28, 2008 2:12 PM
>>>

Please define 'a significant portion of the population'.

Do we really have this sort of trouble with Muslims in the US?

In the meantime, arrest, try, and convict those who commit violence.

John E. "Do we really have this sort of trouble with Muslims in the US? In the meantime, arrest, try, and convict those who commit violence."

Apparently, if Rod's blog is to be believed, we have this simmering pot of violence just waiting for a critical mass to be achieved before "they" run rampant in the streets. Sufficient agitprop to keep the people in fear, but no real answer or proposals to consider on how to resolve this problem while preserving the liberties we say we value. (With one exception: Rombald has had the courage to put forward some ideas.)

The goal of this is not to solve the problem, for that would disempower conservatives. That is why there are so few solutions proposed by conservative fear mongers. For them it is only important that the populace be fearful, making it easier to cast any opposition as "the enemy."

"I strongly object to referring to human beings as "breeding like rats." That is precisely the language the Nazis used to dehumanize Jews, to make people think of them as vermin. Let's be careful."

That was bad of the Nazis to refer to such an intelligent and gifted people as rats.

Apparently, if Rod's blog is to be believed, we have this simmering pot of violence just waiting for a critical mass to be achieved before "they" run rampant in the streets.

Oldham, Malmo, France, Theo Van Gogh...

But keep shoving your head in deeper. You may even see China one day.

Do you support something that Rombald has put forward, or do you have one of your own?

In the U.S., I don't think we need to ship anyone out forcibly. We're not there yet. Just stop all incoming traffic from problem countries, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia should suffice. His points about disengaging from Mohammedan territory are spot on.

The Europeans, however, are in a tighter spot. If they don't get their birthrates up soon, they'll be in a Fijian squeeze, and I wouldn't count on democracy lasting too long.

>>>>
Apparently, if Rod's blog is to be believed, we have this simmering pot of violence just waiting for a critical mass to be achieved before "they" run rampant in the streets.

Oldham, Malmo, France, Theo Van Gogh...

But keep shoving your head in deeper. You may even see China one day.

Posted by: Derek Copold | January 28, 2008 4:20 PM
>>>>

Derek, can you provide any similar examples in the US?

"Such is the nature of fearmongering and scapegoating. The Nazis needed an enemy to focus the anger of their followers, and the Jews"

Yeah, I agree it was evil of the Nazis to scapegoat the Jews.

M_david, I agree with you that the west is not pursuing a good k_strategy. But consider two factors

1) Mass immigration into both European settled lands and European homelands may contribute to depressing the birth rate. Most western couples want a house before bringing children into this world, for example, but immigration fueled population growth has undoubtedly pushed up housing prices. The same phenomenon pushes down wages, or at least retards their growth. Certain elites can have cheap labor, multiple wives, many children, but the mass of Western population is stuck competing with non-Westerners for resources

2) Those who raise issues such as above, in purely positive terms, are punished. Aroudn 2000 a German state legislator objected to Germany's plan to import 'skilled' workers from India. He came up with a memorable slogan -- kinder statt Inder. That is, children instead of Indians -- reproduce ourselves, invest in our children, rather than import a workforce. He was of course excoriated by both socialists and the respectable right.

We could turn around the situation, but the first step is stop immigration (mass immigration) to allow time to recover. Strange, but Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc don't seem to be opening their lands to mass immigration, despite the below replacement fertility of each of those countries. They will have time to recover, we don't as the situation stands now.

Do you see any connection between events in Europe today and the European colonial efforts in the Middle East back in the 1800s and earlly 1900s?

DS, do you see the reason the Serbs of Bosnia, having lived under that Ottomans for 600 years, subject to devshirme, the dzizya, forbidden to carry weapons or own land, slaughtered periodically up until the mid 1800s by the Ottomans and then slaughtered some more by the Slavic Bosnian Muslims when they pressed for their rights given by Ottoman reforms, do you see why they might do what they did at Srebrenica.

No? Their past suffering doesn't excuse the killing of Muslim males of military age indiscriminantly? Yeah, didn't think so -- and you're right. Apply the same logic to 'Western colonialism'.

A few recent comments from some of my favorite angry persons:

"bed wetters"
"mess themselves"
"pack of traitors"

Hey, Rod, could we please get back to the DILDOS? I liked that part much better. Dildos come in all colors. They're very multi-cultural. They never call people names. I have never known a dildo who suggested dropping nuclear bombs on women and children.

I agree that all laws against domestic violence, pedophilia and forced marriage should be enforced. Muslims should not get any slack due to their religion. Given the facts that recovering ex-Pentecostal has helpfully provided elsewhere, revealing that many states permit marriage at 14, I would suggest we need to take a look at our own laws. I fear that more vigorous enforcement of our protective laws will run up against opposition from groups other than Muslims. However, anyone who wants to stand up for enforcing laws to protect women and children from every culture certainly has my support.

Angry? Please. Suggest reviewing Roe v. Wade on a liberal website. Then you'll see REAL anger, the kind of anger that would make a Moqtada al-Sadr wince.

Sig:

Thank You For Laughing.

I still owe Franklin Evans for a new monitor thanks to a similar musical recital herein, way back on 9/25/06, which in blog years is downright Jurassic:

http://tinyurl.com/3d56vp

With any luck, you'll soon make me an honorary Sparrowhawk - and a loaf of apple-laced fry bread...

ds0490: "Do you see any connection between events in Europe today and the European colonial efforts in the Middle East back in the 1800s and earlly 1900s? Does the past have any bearing on the actions Muslims are taking today, or more specifically the more radical variants of Islam?"

Derek Copold: "And this is why liberals are at heart a pack of traitors. They always have to rationalize their inaction by finding some sin in their own society to justify their intellectual betrayal."

No, we liberals just believe that it is good to learn from past mistakes so that we do not repeat them. Unlike conservatives, who are apparently more comfortable either burying the past or rationalizing it away by comparison to other culture's bad actions.

el guerrero negro: "As for Muslims in the west, those who are citizens cannot be expelled by force. However, reasonable measures would be

1) stop further Muslim immigration
2) deport illegal Muslim immigrants
3) decline to renew visas for legal Muslim residents (not citizens)
4) offer financial incentives for Muslim immigrants to go home (many remain such strong ties to the homeland they send their daughters back to marry a cousin, thus getting another immigration place into the West)."

OK, I would agree with #2 and #4. Illegal immigration, regardless where the immigrant comes from, should be controlled. We have sufficient laws on the books, but as with most government agencies our enforcement arm is underfunded, understaffed, and undertrained. Both of these would take substantial investments and might even require a tax increase. But both would be good solutions to explore.

On #1 and #3, how would you reconcile this with the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of exercise of one's religion? For some time courts have held that these basic freedoms apply to those residents who are here legally. We also have laws on the books that prohibit religious discrimination in our immigration policies. Are you suggesting that we recind these laws and apply the 1st Amendment only to legal citizens of the country?

On #1 and #3, how would you reconcile this with the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of exercise of one's religion?

A person applying for residency is not even a legal resident. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean we can't apply a religious test for coming into the country. It also doesn't mean we can't no denial renewal of visas.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”Albert Speer

Hey, an aside.

I'm a lawyer, but I almost never appear in court, and when I do, it's probate. But today I got dragged into a federal case (I'm a tax lawyer), and folks, if ya gotta appear in court, I much recommend a federal court. (Northern District of California in this case.)

Fancy "lounge" for attorneys, looks just like the lounge for first class travelers on airplanes. Free WiFi. Desks, phones, leather chairs. The courtroom is all paneled in expensive wood, and the judge sits like a jewel in a polished setting in the subdued lighting. Yaya, this is the way to practice law, even if you lose!

Sorry for the off-topic. Back to pornography, which interests me a whole lot less.

Rod (as it were, given his "header"): "Can we all not agree that 'Dildos vs. Scimitars' is a pretty great subject line for a blog entry? I mean, ya just gotta read it, yes?"

I can see Messieurs Stone and Parker lifting that wince-inducing* matchup for a college-football set-piece on a Very Special (Timmah!) South Park...in which case, "Big Ten" refers to more than just an athletic conference...

*[an image exceeded in visualised agony only by that conjured up by that doughty dynasty of British journos, the *Cockburns* (pr., mercifully, "Coburns"): Claud, Alexander and Andrew...]

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. Read the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our government was implemented by us and for us, not for the rest of the world. We get to decide who gets to come to the country for whatever reason we want. It's the reason Utah wasn't admitted into the Union until the LDS agreed to remove polygamy. So we are perfectly within our rights to say that Muslims aren't allowed into the country.

"I strongly object to referring to human beings as "breeding like rats." That is precisely the language the Nazis used to dehumanize Jews, to make people think of them as vermin. Let's be careful."

Well, Rod, [B]I[/B] "strongly object" to people suggesting my relationship is comparable to "marrying a plant", "marrying an animal", "marrying a teapot", "marrying a color", "necrophilia", "beastiality", "rape", "incest", "cannabalism", "theft", etc. (ALL of which appear with some regularity in the comboxes of your blog). This is precisely the language used to dehumanize gays, to make people think of us as less than (or not even) human.

Yes, Rod, let's [b]DO[/B] "be careful".

el guerrero negro,

"Oh jeez, another Canadian. Can't criticize any group."

Just like the Rules of Conduct on Beliefnet (should they ever be enforced), eh?

To whit ...

"• dehumanizing or degrading them, perhaps by characterizing them as guilty of a heinous crime, perversion, or illness, such that violence may seem allowable or inconsequential;
• making analogies or comparisons suggesting any of the above (i.e. they are like murderers).

By registering as a member of Beliefnet, you agree that you will not display content, or engage in any activity, that:
is vulgar or violent;
uses Beliefnet community functions primarily to harass or censure any person, group, or entity"