Post by GringoBob on Jan 28, 2011 5:47:56 GMT -5
by Roland Shirk on January 24, 2011 - Why is it so essential for us to keep Muslim immigrants out of Western countries -
even if it means--as I think it realistically will--also excluding others by drastically reducing the sheer numbers of newcomers to our countries? I have already pointed to a number of attributes of Islamic faith and culture that make them dangerous to us. Let me rehearse these briefly, and add a few new observations:
Unlike any other world religion, Islam has a positive doctrine of conquest as a religious duty. (Those closest analogue I can find is the religious pretext Spanish conquistadors used to attack Aztecs and Incas--proferring their leaders a Bible, then when they refused to venerate it, attacking them. But this was an innovation of 16th century land-pirates, which was not grounded in Catholic doctrine. The Crusades, for all their attendant injustices, were not justified in Church circles by any doctrine of conversion via conquest, but rather as wars of liberation for conquered, occupied Christian lands, and defense of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land.)
Migration is one of the key strategies in this strategy of conquest.
Islam demands the political subjugation of all other monotheists, and the extermination or forced conquest of all others.
Muslim scriptures and tradition sanction the deceitful embrace of religious tolerance when Muslims are weak (as they were in Mecca, hence the suras that conveniently were "revealed" in that context), which must be replaced by fierce intolerance as they grow stronger (as they were in Medina, hence the suras that handily came down from heaven then). Typically, the only difference between "moderate" and "extremist" Muslims can be traced to the context in which they are living. Those who live in Western lands are religiously enjoined to speak like early Meccans, while those in positions of power are not just permitted but obliged to act like regnant Medinians. What's shocking to our sensibilities in the West is the spectacle of "radical" imams in places like London jumping prematurely from Meccan to Medinian rhetoric. Let us hope they continue to overplay their hand.
The Muslim subjugation of women, and the Western death-cult of feminism, combine to give Muslim immigrants a huge reproductive advantage over the natives of almost any country which they inhabit. Even conservative Catholics who reject contraception are unlikely to match the Muslim birth rate, for the simple reason that Christianity views women (like men) as ends in themselves, not means to the reproduction of sons. For evidence of this difference, think of the stark divide between Christian visions of heaven (where sex is of no significance) and Muslim paradise, which is distinctly a billionaire boys' club.
Given the radical message of intolerance intrinsic to the Qur'an, which legitimate religious authorities around the world endorse, and the power of terrorism as a tool of "asymmetrical warfare," faithful Muslims in any country will always be just a few Friday sermons away from generating that 1% (or .05%) it takes to cause mayhem among the rest of us. Think, by comparison, of the infinitesimal fragment of pro-life Christians (hundreds of thousands of them marched on Washington yesterday) who endorse, much less use, violence to stop what they consider the mass murder of the unborn--only to be unanimously condemned by every Christian leader of any repute.
All of this is straightforwardly, sadly, true. But the Muslims aren't the only problem. There are weaknesses in our own societies that make us uniquely vulnerable at this historical moment to the dangers of mass immigration on the part of culturally self-confident minorities. (Can you think of a group which better fits that definition than Muslims?) Granting that Islamic intolerance tends to function like a deadly virus, there are situations where our own immune system is compromised, and we are less able to deal with and suppress its toxic effects.
Modern liberalism, in both its secular and Christian variety, is the civilizational equivalent of AIDS--a force that suppresses our collective will to defend ourselves through guilt, false compassion, and a weirdly self-congratulatory self-loathing that recalls the sexual frenzy of late Medieval flagellants. A perfect, and perfectly depressing example of liberalism-as-retrovirus can be seen in the recent remarks of a Catholic prelate in a country whose social fabric is being torn apart by the organized aggressions of Muslim immigrants, Great Britain. Before commenting, let me quote from the statement of Bishop Patrick Lynch, the Chair of the Office for Migration Policy of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, made on January 15 to mark the World Day of Migrants:
In his address for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees today His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI takes as his theme "One human family". He reminds us that because of globalization and migration we are becoming increasingly inter-connected and more conscious than ever that all of us belong to one human family. An important aspect of the mission of the Church in the world today is, therefore, to be a sign and instrument of union with God and of the unity of the whole human race.
Once again Pope Benedict emphasizes the central principles of Catholic Social Teaching with regard to migration - the right to migrate, the right of the State to regulate migration and the responsibility of the State to respect the dignity of every human person and therefore of every migrant. This time, however, he adds that "migrant communities have a duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and national identity. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life". [So the pope, at least, sees reason. Not Bishop Lynch.] This message is particularly relevant for the Church here in England and Wales and for our society at this present time.
Integration does not mean assimilation when one loses one's cultural, social and religious identity and is absorbed into the host culture. Integration is a process--often extending over two generations--that begins when the host community reaches out to welcome and help immigrant communities to connect with, belong to and participate in all the networks that form society today. If people don't feel welcome they can't fully belong and if they don't feel they belong it is difficult to participate and integrate.
Given the intense separatism, political radicalism, and propensity for violence of so many Muslims in Britain, could a churchman make a more recklessly masochistic statement than that one? The pope echoes the Catholic Catechism in laying down as a condition for admission that migrants "integrate" themselves and "respect" the "laws and national identity" of their host countries, preserving for both "a dignified and peaceful life." If migrants don't fulfill that responsibility, they lose the right to enter or remain. Thus explained, the pope's is quite a reasonable position. It allows for, among other things, the deportation of illegal immigrants--who by definition have not respected the laws of their new country.
Desperately uncomfortable with the teachings of a Church that holds migrants as well as natives to ordinary human standards of ethics, Lynch rushes forth to emit a lavender fog of evasion--placing the entire onus on the host society of making "integration" happen, by making people "feel welcome." That, my friends, is precisely how you don't influence a newcomer to alter his habits and mores to match those of a new situation--by affirming him exactly as he is. When a new arrival in a subculture or a club appears and seeks acceptance, the only motivation he has to adapt himself to his new, prefered society is precisely the fear that he will be excluded if he doesn't. Aggressive "welcoming" is the surest way to ensure that people stay exactly the same. That's not a problem for Lynch, however, since he explicitly rejects "assimilation when one loses one's cultural, social and religious identity and is absorbed into the host culture." To seek such a goal for immigrants smacks too much of cultural imperialism for a good, post-colonial Brit like Bishop Lynch.
But the more alien a newcomer's ways are to the basic mores and moral norms of his host society, the more essential it is that he "assimilate." If he does not, and if he is quickly joined by millions more who likewise refuse to assimilate, what his group is engaged in is not immigration but colonization, and conquest. How can this be reconciled (as the pope insists) with preserving the "laws and national identity" of the host society? Clearly, it can't. If Bishop Lynch really respected Church authority and teaching, he would stop obscuring its teaching in the fog of multiculturalist rhetoric. But to do that, he would have to be a Christian first, and a liberal second. And that never happens. The second term of the equation always multiplies the first by zero.
even if it means--as I think it realistically will--also excluding others by drastically reducing the sheer numbers of newcomers to our countries? I have already pointed to a number of attributes of Islamic faith and culture that make them dangerous to us. Let me rehearse these briefly, and add a few new observations:
Unlike any other world religion, Islam has a positive doctrine of conquest as a religious duty. (Those closest analogue I can find is the religious pretext Spanish conquistadors used to attack Aztecs and Incas--proferring their leaders a Bible, then when they refused to venerate it, attacking them. But this was an innovation of 16th century land-pirates, which was not grounded in Catholic doctrine. The Crusades, for all their attendant injustices, were not justified in Church circles by any doctrine of conversion via conquest, but rather as wars of liberation for conquered, occupied Christian lands, and defense of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land.)
Migration is one of the key strategies in this strategy of conquest.
Islam demands the political subjugation of all other monotheists, and the extermination or forced conquest of all others.
Muslim scriptures and tradition sanction the deceitful embrace of religious tolerance when Muslims are weak (as they were in Mecca, hence the suras that conveniently were "revealed" in that context), which must be replaced by fierce intolerance as they grow stronger (as they were in Medina, hence the suras that handily came down from heaven then). Typically, the only difference between "moderate" and "extremist" Muslims can be traced to the context in which they are living. Those who live in Western lands are religiously enjoined to speak like early Meccans, while those in positions of power are not just permitted but obliged to act like regnant Medinians. What's shocking to our sensibilities in the West is the spectacle of "radical" imams in places like London jumping prematurely from Meccan to Medinian rhetoric. Let us hope they continue to overplay their hand.
The Muslim subjugation of women, and the Western death-cult of feminism, combine to give Muslim immigrants a huge reproductive advantage over the natives of almost any country which they inhabit. Even conservative Catholics who reject contraception are unlikely to match the Muslim birth rate, for the simple reason that Christianity views women (like men) as ends in themselves, not means to the reproduction of sons. For evidence of this difference, think of the stark divide between Christian visions of heaven (where sex is of no significance) and Muslim paradise, which is distinctly a billionaire boys' club.
Given the radical message of intolerance intrinsic to the Qur'an, which legitimate religious authorities around the world endorse, and the power of terrorism as a tool of "asymmetrical warfare," faithful Muslims in any country will always be just a few Friday sermons away from generating that 1% (or .05%) it takes to cause mayhem among the rest of us. Think, by comparison, of the infinitesimal fragment of pro-life Christians (hundreds of thousands of them marched on Washington yesterday) who endorse, much less use, violence to stop what they consider the mass murder of the unborn--only to be unanimously condemned by every Christian leader of any repute.
All of this is straightforwardly, sadly, true. But the Muslims aren't the only problem. There are weaknesses in our own societies that make us uniquely vulnerable at this historical moment to the dangers of mass immigration on the part of culturally self-confident minorities. (Can you think of a group which better fits that definition than Muslims?) Granting that Islamic intolerance tends to function like a deadly virus, there are situations where our own immune system is compromised, and we are less able to deal with and suppress its toxic effects.
Modern liberalism, in both its secular and Christian variety, is the civilizational equivalent of AIDS--a force that suppresses our collective will to defend ourselves through guilt, false compassion, and a weirdly self-congratulatory self-loathing that recalls the sexual frenzy of late Medieval flagellants. A perfect, and perfectly depressing example of liberalism-as-retrovirus can be seen in the recent remarks of a Catholic prelate in a country whose social fabric is being torn apart by the organized aggressions of Muslim immigrants, Great Britain. Before commenting, let me quote from the statement of Bishop Patrick Lynch, the Chair of the Office for Migration Policy of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, made on January 15 to mark the World Day of Migrants:
In his address for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees today His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI takes as his theme "One human family". He reminds us that because of globalization and migration we are becoming increasingly inter-connected and more conscious than ever that all of us belong to one human family. An important aspect of the mission of the Church in the world today is, therefore, to be a sign and instrument of union with God and of the unity of the whole human race.
Once again Pope Benedict emphasizes the central principles of Catholic Social Teaching with regard to migration - the right to migrate, the right of the State to regulate migration and the responsibility of the State to respect the dignity of every human person and therefore of every migrant. This time, however, he adds that "migrant communities have a duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and national identity. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life". [So the pope, at least, sees reason. Not Bishop Lynch.] This message is particularly relevant for the Church here in England and Wales and for our society at this present time.
Integration does not mean assimilation when one loses one's cultural, social and religious identity and is absorbed into the host culture. Integration is a process--often extending over two generations--that begins when the host community reaches out to welcome and help immigrant communities to connect with, belong to and participate in all the networks that form society today. If people don't feel welcome they can't fully belong and if they don't feel they belong it is difficult to participate and integrate.
Given the intense separatism, political radicalism, and propensity for violence of so many Muslims in Britain, could a churchman make a more recklessly masochistic statement than that one? The pope echoes the Catholic Catechism in laying down as a condition for admission that migrants "integrate" themselves and "respect" the "laws and national identity" of their host countries, preserving for both "a dignified and peaceful life." If migrants don't fulfill that responsibility, they lose the right to enter or remain. Thus explained, the pope's is quite a reasonable position. It allows for, among other things, the deportation of illegal immigrants--who by definition have not respected the laws of their new country.
Desperately uncomfortable with the teachings of a Church that holds migrants as well as natives to ordinary human standards of ethics, Lynch rushes forth to emit a lavender fog of evasion--placing the entire onus on the host society of making "integration" happen, by making people "feel welcome." That, my friends, is precisely how you don't influence a newcomer to alter his habits and mores to match those of a new situation--by affirming him exactly as he is. When a new arrival in a subculture or a club appears and seeks acceptance, the only motivation he has to adapt himself to his new, prefered society is precisely the fear that he will be excluded if he doesn't. Aggressive "welcoming" is the surest way to ensure that people stay exactly the same. That's not a problem for Lynch, however, since he explicitly rejects "assimilation when one loses one's cultural, social and religious identity and is absorbed into the host culture." To seek such a goal for immigrants smacks too much of cultural imperialism for a good, post-colonial Brit like Bishop Lynch.
But the more alien a newcomer's ways are to the basic mores and moral norms of his host society, the more essential it is that he "assimilate." If he does not, and if he is quickly joined by millions more who likewise refuse to assimilate, what his group is engaged in is not immigration but colonization, and conquest. How can this be reconciled (as the pope insists) with preserving the "laws and national identity" of the host society? Clearly, it can't. If Bishop Lynch really respected Church authority and teaching, he would stop obscuring its teaching in the fog of multiculturalist rhetoric. But to do that, he would have to be a Christian first, and a liberal second. And that never happens. The second term of the equation always multiplies the first by zero.