Tuesday, November 28, 2006


"Islamophobia" is a word which appears to be creeping into periodicals, news broadcasts, lectures, blog-entries and other places.

Unlike "homophobia", which declares a fear of homosexuals when it would be better to state a condition-of-revulsion/disgust, "islamophobia" is real.

People do have a fear of Islam. That fear is realistic and is based on the teachings of that ideology and on 1400-year of its approved practices: From wife beating to genocide; From robbery to rape; From spewing hate (Often based on the supporting literature printed and distributed by the Saudi government) to the outright use of murder for revenge or to suppress criticism, even by Muslims, of the worst teachings and practices in Islam.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Primer On Islamic Imperialism & Aggression

The author of the otherwise excellent article below forgot to note that the troops of the Polish Commenwealth stopped a huge Islamic-Turkish invasion from the North BEFORE they went to Vienna and destroyed the Turkish army and invasion there.

Primer on Islamic Imperialism
November 20th, 2006

One of the alleged sins held against the West by Islamic radicalism – which has declared war on us through Osama bin Laden’s fatwa issued in 1998 in London – is imperialism: the imperialism of the Dutch, the British and the French from the 17th to the 20th centuries. (For some reason, Russian imperialism in Central Asia gets a pass – so far.) Israel is allegedly an outpost of European imperialism.

The original western imperial enterprise in the radical Islamic narrative was the Crusades. The First Crusade began in 1095. The Crusades were undertaken to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. Reclaim it from whom? From the Muslims.

But Mohammed died in Medina in 632 as ruler of the Hijaz, the northwest section of Arabia along the Red Sea which includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. But if they only controlled the Hijaz in 632, what were the Muslims doing in Jerusalem in 1100?

Of course, they were there by conquest! They were they by virtue of Islamic imperialism – the extension of the Land of Islam (Dar al-Islam) by holy war: jihad (notwithstanding the other meanings of this term).

Let’s review. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and ruler who conquered Mecca and the Hijaz from his base in Medina. Following The Prophet’s death in 632, Islam was spread by Arab and Muslim conquest. There are Muslims who are not Arabs, but the first phase of expansion was Arab expansion. The ruler of the Muslim world, the successor to Muhammad, was the Caliph – “the shadow of God on earth.”

The Caliph was both the religious and political head of the Muslim world which, unlike the Christian world, draws no distinction between the two. In North Africa and the Middle East, the lands that the Arab Muslim world expanded into were controlled by the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. These were Christian lands. To the East, between the Middle East and India, was the Persian Empire with a different religious tradition.

At the death of Muhammad in 632, the realm of Islam consisted of northwest Arabia. To the north and west is Christian Byzantium, to the east is Persia. Neither of these were Arab; neither of them were Muslim. But within 100 years, the territory from Persia to Spain was controlled by Muslim Arabs. How did this happen? Egypt, for instance, was not in 632 an Arab country. It was of a different ethnic stock and had been in existence for 3600 years.

What happened was conquest, one of the most impressive in history. Here is a very brief timeline:

1. 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca from his base in Medina.

2. 632 – Muhammad dies in Medina. Islam controls the Hijaz.

3. 636 – conquest of Syria. Victory in battle over the Byzantines gives Syria and the surrounding lands, all Christian – including Palestine and Iraq – to the Caliph.

4. 636 – 642 Persia conquered by the Muslims.

5. 642 – conquest of Egypt. The Arab/Muslim conquest moves west along North Africa into hitherto non-Arab/non-Muslim lands.

First Muslim invasion of Europe: from the West

6. 711 – Tariq (after whom Gibraltar is named: the Rock of Tariq – Gib al-Tariq) invades Spain. The Muslim conquest moves into Europe.

7. 718 – conquest of Spain complete.

8. 732 – Muslim invasion of France is stopped at the Battle of Poitiers (also called the Battle of Tours). This is regarded as one of the turning points in world history. The Franks, under their leader Charles Martel (the grandfather of Charlemagne), defeat the Muslims and turn them back out of France.

Thus, in exactly 100 years, from the death of The Prophet in 632, to 732, the Arab/Muslim realm had extended from the Hijaz, a province in Arabia, to encompass Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Persia, Egypt, the North African littoral, Spain and, temporarily, part of France.

The first European interaction with Islam is with Islam in the role of a conquering army, and, in the case of Spain, one that comes to stay. Spain became a Muslim colony. Over several hundred years, Spain was reconquered – the reconquista – for Christendom. The last Moors are expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.

In the 1300’s, the Turks took over leadership of the Muslim world from the Arabs. They established the Ottoman Empire with its capital at Christian Constantinople after conquering it in 1453. The Muslim world under Ottoman leadership began incursions into Europe from the East.

Second Muslim invasion of Europe: from the East

9. 1453 – Muslim Turks conquer Christian Constantinople and make it the seat of the Caliphate

10. 1456 – Muslims conquer Athens

11. 1478 – Serbia, Bosnia, Crimea come under Ottoman control

12. 1480 – Otranto in Italy taken by the Ottomans

13. 1529 – Vienna besieged by the Ottomans

14. 1683 – Battle of Vienna. The Turks are defeated by the Polish king Jan Sobieski leading a combined Polish-Lithuanian army. This is the high-water-mark of Turkish/Muslim conquest of Europe from the East.

1683 is an important year, because after that the Muslim Empire had no further military successes over the West. Thus, while this date seems lost in the mists of time to most Westerners, it remains a vivid memory in Islamic history. It marks the beginning of a downward slide in military fortunes that ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French in World War I, the occupation of Muslim lands by the European states, and finally the abolition of the Caliphate itself by Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) in 1924.

But in the 1980’s, something important happened. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. decided that it would support the native Afghan resistance, the mujahedeen. This resulted in a massive arms support operation by the CIA, funneled through the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI.

Thus, the American hand was concealed from the mujahedeen. When, particularly with the help of the Stinger missile, the Russians were defeated by the mujahedeen, this represented in their own eyes a victory of Islamic forces over those of a modern state – indeed, a superpower – something not seen since the 17th century in the Muslim world. Here was a model to be built on.

15. 1979 – Soviet Union invades Afghanistan

16. 1988 – Soviet Union leaves Afghanistan, defeated by the Muslim mujahedeen. A victory for Islam over the “West.”

17. 1991 – Soviet Union disintegrates. Who can say that its defeat by the Muslims was not its mortal blow?

Third Muslim invasion of Europe: from the South

And now we find ourselves confronted by a third Muslim attack on the West – a third “invasion of Europe” (if “Europe” is expanded to mean culture as well as geography, and includes North America) by an expansionary Muslim philosophy – by Islamic radicalism. The first Muslim attack was from the West in the 700’s; the second was from the East in the 1400’s – 1600’s; the third began with the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1988 in Afghanistan and its subsequent collapse and is in the form of mass immigration.

The philosopher and economist Thomas Sowell instructs us to ask “as compared to what?” when evaluating and criticizing human enterprise. It is pointless to compare human enterprise to some abstract ideal that has never existed. As Sowell points out, if the standard is set high enough, anything will fail.

Was the British Empire – the archetype of Western imperialism – a bad thing?

As compared to what? As compared to the Muslim Empires? As compared to them, the British Empire was a model of enlightenment. The Muslims pride themselves on their tolerance of minorities. But that tolerance came at the cost of dhimmitude – second-class citizenship and payment of tributes. The British Empire was, yes, established by force, but it was not sustained only by force. It was also sustained by consent. And it left behind a number of the freest, richest, most liberal countries on earth. As compared to the Muslims, the British look pretty good.

But it is not the point of this article that Arab/Muslim imperialism was an evil, or at least was not a unique evil. It was a human enterprise with its strengths and weaknesses. Muslim culture at its highest was high indeed. The Muslims preserved and passed on the learning of the Greeks. The Arabs developed Arabic numerals, and invented the number zero (or the next best thing, recognized the significance of the Indians having done so), the basis of modern mathematics. Algebra is an Arabic word: al-gebera. Muslim letters, science, medicine and architecture were at the highest level of achievement.

But so are our own. Today. We can’t have a double standard here – being impressed by the achievements and conquests of Arab/Muslim civilization but at the same time embarrassed by the even more impressive achievements and conquests of the West. If conquest is something to be embarrassed by, if it is a moral disqualification, then the Arab/Muslims are at the head of the line; Europe is well back on the list! And whatever the achievements of medieval Muslim culture, and they were many, they are in the past. There are few achievements today, and none to compare with those of the West.

Yes, one can certainly ask about spiritual achievement. If the Muslims wish to live in the 8th century, nobody is stopping them. Just as nobody stops the Amish from living in the 18th century. But if the standard is living in the 21st century, then it is clear that the West is a superior culture in all respects – in comfort of living, in science, in medicine, in human rights, in the rights of women to name just a few.

We are in a fight for our lives against Islamic radicalism. We cannot unilaterally disarm ourselves morally because of some imagined slights offered to Muslim culture by the West. Yes, we are the stronger, but that was not always so. When Muslims were the stronger, they prided themselves on their conquests and their cultural and political dominance, which still shape the world in which we live.

Greg Richards is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Mischievous Moslems ????


By Don Feder
Posted November 13, 2006

I should seriously write a book called, The Idiots Guide To Not Thinking Seriously About Islam.

It's hard to find a subject where mushy thinking is more in vogue - where political correctness conquers reality more thoroughly. People actually are afraid to think seriously on the subject, because the logical conclusions are too frightening for many to contemplate.

And so, there's no place where comfortable clich├ęs are more readily deployed.

Probably the most glaring illustration of inanity here were recent comments by his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, the 14th earthly incarnation of Larry, Moe and Curly.

On leaving a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of Tibetan Buddhists told reporters that we can't hold all Muslims responsible for the misdeeds of a few.

The Lama: "Nowadays, I often express that due to a few mischievous Muslims' acts we should not consider all Muslims as something bad. That is very unfair."

Expanding on this dazzling analysis, the Dalai Lama continued: "A few mischievous people you can find from all religions - among Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists. To generalize is not correct."

O.K., now I know this will get me scratched from the invite list for Richard Gere's New Year's Eve party, but I just gotta ask: When was the last time a bald guy in a saffron robe threatened to kill someone they believed had insulted the Buddha?

While we're at it, when was the last time a gang of Talmudic scholars tried to blow up anything? Did the Vatican put out a fatwah on "DaVinci Code" author Dan Brown? The last holy war committed in the name of Christianity was over 800 years ago. If Hindus behead hostages, I've somehow managed to miss it.

"A few mischievous Muslims" makes kidnapping, torture, beheadings, bomb plots, mass murder and death threats sound like schoolboy pranks. It's September 11, 2001, and some high-spirited Muslim merrymakers just crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, slaughtering 3,000 innocents. What a lark!

Here are some recent examples of Muslim high-jinks:

* In Iraq, Father Paulis Iskander, a Syrian-Orthodox priest, was kidnapped by a few Muslim pranksters. After good-naturedly torturing him, they beheaded the priest. This was in retaliation for Pope Benedict XVI's quote of a 14th. century Byzantine emperor. Jihadists apparently missed the Catholic-Orthodox schism (1054 AD) - or maybe all Crusaders look the same to them.

* There are 1 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq - but not for long. They've been targeted by every side in the civil war. On September 24th, two bombs exploded in St. Mary's Cathedral in Baghdad. Earlier, a church was bombed in Basra.

* Muslims celebrated their holy month of Ramadan by racking up an impressive body count -- more than 1,600 dead in 280 separate terror attacks in 17 countries. As I recall, for my bar mitzvah, I didn't kill anyone. But I did hurt someone's feelings on Passover, once.

* In a recent column, former New York Mayor Ed Koch reports on a meeting he had with Pope John Paul II in the early 1990s. Forthright fellow that he is, Koch asked the pope why the Vatican didn't recognize Israel (it did a few years later), Koch says John Paul II replied: "It will happen someday, but it can't happen now. I have a responsibility to the Catholics who live in Koranic lands and who would be in danger if we recognized Israel." This wasn't paranoia. John Paul knew exactly what happens when Muslims get testy.

* In Germany, the government is starting to crack down on an estimated 5,000 Islamist websites that are "spreading hatred" and "hawking terror." I see, those few mischievous Muslims must all be web-site designers and computer geeks.

* Then again, perhaps they're all involved in mass communications. The American-Muslim TV network, broadcasting in six states to a potential audience of two million, says its mission is "to improve the image of Muslims in the United States." Recent programming included the broadcast of an anti-Semitic/anti-Christian sermon, with the supplication: "May God destroy them."

* In Atlanta, Ethiopian immigrant Khalid Adem is on trial for circumcising his then-two-year-old daughter. Female genital mutilation is all the rage among African Muslims.

* Islamic funsters tend to be particularly hard on the ladies. There are as many as 300,000 runaway girls in happenin' Iran, some as young as

9. It's estimated that 86% of the runaways were rejected by their families after they were raped. In Prophet-land, rape is shameful - for the victim.

* Islam's rhetorical war against the hated Zionist entity continues. In Karachi, Pakistan, a few mischievous Muslims - well, 6,000 to be exact - marched through the streets shouting "Death to Israel! Death America." That's how Muslim merrymakers celebrate Al-Qods Day (or Jerusalem Day).

* His Naziness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of 68 million waggish Iranians) continues to assure us that Israel will be "wiped from the map," the Holocaust is a "myth," and any nation that sides with the Jewish state will face the "boiling wrath" of adherents to the religion of peace.

* On October 24, the Taliban announced it was planning attacks on civilian targets in Europe, in revenge for the invasion of Afghanistan that resulted in toppling its regime. A Taliban commander observed on Sky News television: "It's acceptable to kill ordinary people in Europe because these are the people who have voted in the government.... We will kill them and laugh over them." Like the Dalai Lama said, these guys have a sense of humor.

* As noted earlier, there is no freedom of conscience in Islam (or freedom of anything else, for that matter). In Ethiopia, in July, a mischievous Muslim mob attacked a group of Christians in the city of Henno. The victims included two prominent Christians who had converted from Islam. The Muslim scamps used knives, stones and metal bars to reinforce the point that - like the Syndicate - there's only one way out of this organization.

* The Afghans who kidnapped Italian journalist Gabriele Torsello have offered to exchange him for Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert forced to flee the country. His own family wants Rahman dead. Bring back Rahman so we may instruct him in the finer points of Sharia, the abductors of Torsello plead.

* In Britain, there are veiled threats over the suggestion by Tony Blair and others, that some Muslim chicks stop dressing like they just stepped off a camel caravan (full face veil).

* Perhaps the Brits are thinking that if their homegrown Sons and Daughters of Allah were more assimilated, they wouldn't be subjected to high-spirited pranks like the 2005 London transit bombings (52 commuters dead) or the foiled August plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound jetliners (with a potential death toll exceeding 9/11)

* Across the Channel, Robert Redeker (a French high-school philosophy teacher) is a marked man, since the publication of his September 19 piece in Le Figaro, wherein he called the Koran "a book of extraordinary violence" (Hello, Dalai!) and observed that Mohammed was "a pitiless warlord, pillager , massacrer of Jews and polygamist" - in other words, a 7th. century Arabian rascal. E-mail death threats started pouring in the day the article ran. One naughty website published a map showing the exact location of his home, along with photos of Redeker and his workplace. (An e-mail amusingly informed the teacher: "You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred million Muslims are ready to kill you.")

* All it took was one guy named Mohammed to murder Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, for making a movie about the treatment of women in the wacky world of Islam. Van Gogh was shot, stabbed, had his throat slashed. A note by the killer pinned to his body read, "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs."

* A spokesman for a French police union says Muslim youths are waging a "civil war" against the gendarmes. The Gallic intifada that started last November never really stopped. At one point last year, disaffected "youth," as the French press discretely calls them, were torching 1,300 cars a night, to cries of "Allahu Akbar." Rioting spread to 300 French cities and spilled over into Belgium and Germany. Now, whenever French cops go to housing projects they are assaulted with everything from stones to guns and Molotov cocktails. Nearly 2,500 officers have been injured this year.

To return to the Dalai Lama's daft observation, while it is undoubtedly true that most Muslims don't want to jihad us - there are enough who do. In a 2005 survey by The Daily Telegraph, one quarter of British Muslims said they had at least some sympathy with their coreligionists who murdered 52 random Brits in the July commuter bombings. One-quarter of a million is more than "a few."

Add to this number the minions of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jihad-this, and Army of God-that, the mobs in Tehran, Karachi and Dar es Saalam etc., the ayatollahs, imams, sheiks, mullahs, their blind followers and rabid supporters - not to mention the Saudis funding radical mosques and madrassahs from the Queens to Calcutta and beyond. It all adds up to a whole lot of Muslim mischief-making.

And let's not forget the millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) of Muslims who aren't actually killing anyone, or condoning the killing of anyone (except Jews, of course), who nevertheless think it would be swell if the whole world lived under Islamic law -- with honor-killings and genital-mutilation for all.

Now, here's the really scary part: As Mark Steyn points out in his book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, between 1970 and 2000, while the share of the world's population represented by industrialized nations fell from just under 30% to just over 20%, the mischievous nations (whose principal manufactured products are jihad and general theological nuttiness) went from 15% to around 20%.

What nations have the highest fertility rates? So sorry you asked. (and you will be too when you see the answer) -- Niger (7.46 children per woman), Mali (7.42), Somalia (6.76), Afghanistan (6.69) and Yemen (6.58). Says Steyn: "Notice what they have in common? Starts with an I, ends with a slam."

For comparison, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 2.11, about replacement level. That's high next to Canada (1.5), Germany (1.3), Russia and Italy (1.2) and Spain (1.1). Of the 10 nations with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe.

It gets worse. Consider the percentage of population currently under 15 years of age - a harbinger of future demographic growth - Spain and Germany (14%), the U.K (18%), the U.S. (21%), Saudi Arabia (39%), Pakistan (40%) and Yemen (47%).

We're told that Muslims are 10% of the population of France. But of "Frenchmen" under 20, 30% are mischievous. In the U.K. there are more Moslems in mosque each week than Christians attending Church of England services.

Forget suicide bombs; they're detonating population bombs.

Should we "consider all Muslims as something bad"? Of course not. Should we consider Islam as something bad? That's an entirely different question - one which politicians, Lamas and the mainstream media studiously avoid - when they're not babbling about the "religion of peace."

And if Islam itself is "something bad" - if a faith embraced by 1.3 billion people contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us (requiring only the right conditions to germinate) -- what does that say for the future of a world where Islam is the fastest growing religion?

Some of us live on comfortable estates in India, writing books about inner-peace and harmony, while contemplating the sound of one hand clapping. Others of us live in the real world.

This commentary originally appeared at GrasstopsUS

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Islam VS. Christianity: Some Contrasts

It most strongly appears that the Holy See and too many others have made a decision to cast a purposeful fog of ignorance over the differences between Christianity and Islam. That act is one which conceals truth and is, therefore, a sin and a crime.

Therefore, it is well past the time to point out the following differences between the teachings, practices, founders, and “fruits” of Christianity and Islam.

1.Jesus Christ (Whom Christians believe was the Son of God) taught love, peace and forgiveness as the basic virtues and foundations of His faith. Even though He reprimanded over-arrogant teachers, child abusers and those (The money changers) who commercialized religion, His responses were mostly controlled. Even if, as some “Christians” hold, he was “only” the best-of-men, his commitment to love, service and poverty would be a great example to all for all time and for all people.
2.Mohammed was a liar (Beyond his claim to be a prophet), an oath-breaker, robber, murderer, and sexual abuser of a nine-year old girl-child. His declarations of what was the will of Allah changed to suit his change in fortunes and perverted physical desires.
3.When Christians (Especially in the USA) give charity, they do so without regard to the
religion of those in need as the many millions of private and government aid given to the victims of the recent Tsunami, even to those (ie Muslims) who have so often declared their hate of Christians and their desire to destroy our Faith, Nation and Civilization.
4.When Muslims give “charity” it is very rare for them to do so except to others of their own ideology and much too often such “charity” is given to terrorist organizations or to such as the parents of suicide murderers to reward them for raising up and misdirecting such criminals.
5.When Christians go forth to “preach the Gospel” they do so with love, a willingness to suffer even death to do so and very often as part of a campaign to physically heal diseases and injuries. (Oh, yes---There were times when that conversion process was supported by armed force as sword-and-fire were used against such as the Aztecs, who ripped the hearts out of thousands on their temple mounts, or the Pagans of the North who hung their human sacrifices in their sacred oak groves.)
6.When Muslims go forth to spread Islam they do so with sword or assault rifle in hand, with a desire to subjugate others and with robbery and rape in mind (As is now occurring The Sudan.) This has not changed in the last 1400-years.
7.One of the best fruits of the tree of Christianity are the many Western universities, which began as religious schools, but quickly expanded to include medicine, civil (NOT religious) law, the liberal arts, “natural philosophy” (ie The basis of all sciences)
AND to every art and science which now so improves the state of human beings and has raised so many up above the beast-like existence so much in place before that very Catholic invention. Those universities became the centers of rational thought (Although too many have left that path, even in the West), logic as the partner of Faith and the well source of invention, artistic endeavor and creativity.
8.For a short time Islam hung on its tree the best of Indian, Egyptian, Persian and Jewish philosophy and science. But, they did NOT graft those gifts to Islam and they wilted or fell off, leaving only the basic teachings of Mohammed behind to trouble the world.
9.In the West (And, now India and the Far East) the human mind has developed many
inventions and new technologies, for better or worse, on the base of the above-noted
universities and the creative use of logic and thought. The millions of patents, the Nobel prizes for science, are all well known to all.
10.Within Islam there are no Nobel prize winners in such areas and few, if any, new inventions; The interest in technology appears to be centered on such weapons as will allow Islam to subjugate others.
11.In the West musical and artistic creativity produces fields of creative flowers (With some rank weeds mixed in); What is good-and-beautiful being greater than what is ugly-and-evil.
12.In strict/traditional Islam there is little but sterile geometric shapes for art and very limited approval of Jihadi marching songs (Along with some Pre-Islamic musical forms).
13.In our civilization, we worship LIFE.
14.Islam, by the admission of its teachers, worships DEATH.


Saturday, November 04, 2006

Forgiving My Enemies

As a Catholic-Christian I am required to forgive my enemies (70 X 7 Times).

HOWEVER, I see no reason to hold myself to a higher standard for such forgiveness than that held by my Church---Which requires confession-of-fault, contrition and an honest expression of intent to not sin again before forgiveness is allowed. (Penance, including restitution, may be needed to complete the process.)

THEREFORE, the person who continues to offend against me and will not confess that as a fault/sin and refuses to show contrition or intent to stop offending against me (And, mine ***)will NOT receive my forgiveness.

PERHAPS, the classic example of such, over the last 1400-years, is the position of orthodox Islam which will NOT acknowledge the faults of its members who use murder, rape, genocide, robbery, perpetual war against Non-Muslims, revenge and the other horrors taught by Mohammed to further the cause of that criminal ideology.

*** "Mine" = My family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens and all who support humane and civilized behaviors and cultures.

Friday, November 03, 2006

A Natural Law Self-Test

The following represents my efforts as defining the Natural Law base and necessary conclusions as to self-defense and the defense of innocent others. The above should be used, as a self-test, as to the reader's understanding of the ethics of force.


1.Every human being has a (Natural Law) right to life.
2.Every human has a right to protect self against unjust attacks on his/her life.
3.That right does NOT extend to aggressors who are attacking other persons.
4.The most innocent persons and in need of defense are: Unborn children; And, the aged and infirm who are incapable of defending themselves.
5.There are instances where, in defense of self or others (As either individuals or societies), the taking of human life is necessary and proper.
6.Property represents the time expended to honestly earn it by physical or mental effort. Property, in fact, represents life.
7.There are instances when rights-and-duties under Natural Law conflict with those civil (Even democratically enacted) law (eg The abortion issues).
8.“That Commandment” should be translated as: “Thou shall not murder!”.


1.Every human being has a Natural Law right to either the expectation that s/he will be
immediately protected from deadly attack by others (eg Government authorities) OR will have immediate access to effective means of self-defense (ie Modern firearms).
2.Every human has the right, if not the duty, to extend that protection to innocent persons when such are unjustly attacked.
3.Every human being has a Natural Law right to protect that part of their property as represented by the honest labor for which they spent a part of their life, even if the State will not do so, by any means (Including deadly force) needed to do so.


1.The abortion of an unborn child may be an outcome of saving its mother's life in
cases as such cancers as would require the removal of the uterus during pregnancy. Is this in accordance with Natural or Moral Law?
2.Abandoning the aged or infirm to deadly danger so that others may be saved from death (eg “Women and children first!” in abandoning a ship in peril). Is this subject to moral strictures or firm guidelines as opposed to “situational ethics”?
3.If the State will not do so, is it permitted to use such force as is necessary (Including deadly force) to stop an abortionist-at-work or someone attempting to commit an act of euthanasia?
4.As honestly earned property represents human life, is it permitted to use deadly force to stop a robber?


1.Do you have any objections to the premises given above? If so, what are they and what
is the basis for those objections?
2.If “yes”, then discuss those objections in terms of the conclusions given above and as to the examples-for-discussion provided above.