No "Clash Of Civilizations" # 2

Again, I note that there is NO “clash of civilizations” between Islam and anything else.

There is only Western Civilization (which is limited to the USA, Canada, Vatican City, other small places in Europe and the rest of the World and too few other places), Islam (Which is an ANTI-civilization; bent on following Mohammed's instructions to destroy everything which marks true civilization) and Secular Humanism (Which is a NOT-civilization, equally against the basics of true civilization, as destructive of culture as is Islam; But, offering nothing but individual hedonism---Not even the community of the wrongful and homicidal believers of Islam).

What "Moderate Muslims" ?

I keep on hearing and reading the term “Moderate Muslims”; But, I do not hear them or see their positions in print---According to MY definition.

“MODERATE MUSLIM(S): One/more persons who identify themselves as “Muslims” and part of the “Islamic Community” who have or, upon request, formally and publicly condemn and reject (For all time) those teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (The sayings of Mohammed) which permit or encourage or command: The killing (Murder) of any Muslim who converts to another religion OR who “insults” Mohammed or the Koran; The sexual use (Rape) of slave girls and female captives taken on jihad; The proposition that Islam is in a state of perpetual war with all others until they “submit” to Islamic rule; The proposition that non-Muslims and all women are to be allowed only inferior legal, social and political status under Islamic rule and law; That it is forbidden for a Muslim to be friends with non-Muslims; That democratic governments and laws are inferior to Islamic rule under its laws (Sharia); AND all of the other like teachings of the Koran and Mohammed.”

When I see full-page adds, signed by many local Muslims, in newspapers with the above perpetual condemnations, I will believe that there are “Moderate Muslims”. Until that happens, please do NOT use that term as it is a lie, a deception and a part of the jihad against all “unbelievers”.

Maintain Ignorance Of Islam!!! A Fatwa!

In the name of Allah, The Merciful (Except to victims of suicide bombers, girls and women in the Sudan, the thousands killed on”9/11” and the other foes of Islam), do NOT let anyone overcome their ignorance of the true nature of Islam by reading that horridly accurate book noted below.

Most specially, do not let any potential or recent converts to Islam to do so. In addition, try to suppress its reading, understanding and application among: Elected officials, especially in democratic governments (Which will be submerged beneath our Sharia law); Journalists, especially those not paid bribes by our followers or whose agencies are not owned by Muslims; The so-called clergy of the unbelievers; Professors and teachers in the schools of those who are our enemies (Until we can convert those institutions to only the study of the Koran); And, to the diplomats and military of those evil ones who oppose the spread of Islam until our very lucrative operation controls the whole world.

Spencer, Robert
The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam (And The Crusades)
Regnery Publishing, Inc. (An Eagle Publishing Company)
Washington, DC; 2005

This fatwa is binding on all Muslims.
/Abdul bin Abdul bin Adnauseam

A Way To Earn US Citizenship

So many are complaining that immigrants do not have a “fair chance” at earning citizenship in the USA. Here is a way for some of them to do so and to serve the USA in the process: ESTABLISH A USA “FOREIGN LEGION” which would mirror the equivalent French organization which is an elite group which grants French citizenship after a term of five years of loyal service. The characteristics of our Foreign Legion would be these.

1.All recruits would have to pass such physical examinations as would allow intense
military training and service.
2.Minimal understanding of English would be required to the extent of obeying orders and communicating with officers and NCOs.
3.All officers would be US Citizens, paid at US Army rates and drawn from the Armed Forces of the USA.
4.All NCOs would, initially be our fellow citizens until Legionaries are experienced
and trained enough to warrant promotion—With no such being promoted to Sergent or above until at least four-years of service, proof of greater English ability and appropriate NCO training. The initial citizen NCOs would be drawn from the our own Armed Forces and draw their regular pay.
5.The highest rank, before a grant of citizenship is had, would be Warrant Officer.
6.The initial term of service would be seven years (As citizenship here is worth much more than that of France as it is located in Eurarabia).
7.The pay given to such soldiers would be one-half of the equivalent in the US Army, with a matching sum held (In interest bearing escrow accounts) until honorable completion of seven-years of service.
8.At the end of such years of honorable service the Legionnaire would be given that escrow pay and US citizenship AND allowed a choice of taking a full discharge (Which would also satisfy US citizens' military obligations) OR transferring to the
US Army at the same grade/rank OR reenlisting in that Legion at one range increase in pay with NO 50% withholding.
9.This Legion could be deployed at the will of the President of the USA with only a
post-deployment message to the Congress as to the “reasons why”; But, no armed deployment in the USA (Outside of established military bases) wound be allowed. Unarmed use, in the USA for fire-fighting and construction in US Parks and Forests would be allowed.
10.This Legion would have its own and more severe criminal code which would exempt its non-citizen members from the protections of the Constitution, appeals to our courts and limit appeals only to the President.
11.Persons who desert from that Legion or who commit serious violations of its criminal code would be imprisoned and then deported or shot.
12.After four years of loyal service, qualified members could be appointed to West Point or to Army or USMC or its own OCS for return for a minimum of five years of active duty in that Legion at rank and pay consistent with their promotion and with US citizenship.
13.Basic training would be no less intense than that of the French or Spanish equivalent forces and would emphasis the learning of English and the USA's laws, mores and customs.
14.All promotions would be tied to success in the areas noted in #13 above.
15.The uniform of this service would be of a different color than that of the other
United States forces.

Against Those Who Attack Us

There are and have been those who would destroy the USA and, more importantly, what remains of Western Civilization. If you do not believe me, then study history and learn from it (So you are not condemned to repeat it).

Some centuries ago there was a group of persons known as “Cathari” who built a short term culture on the beliefs that the physical world was evil, sex was wrong, property should be taken from others for the common good (Defining that last term and making recruitment a lot easier). If they would have succeeded, then the growth of the human race stopped, the forces then developing towards technology and democracy killed and all the other benefits of our civilization prevented. Although their “philosophy” did have some good points, robbery and murder AND the potential of the destructions-of-civilization greatly outweighed any such positive positions.

In France they made great headway. But, when confronted with a local and defensive crusade, they hid themselves among others (Many who had benefited from the Cathari robberies) when besieged in the city of Beziers. The leader of the crusaders there was in a moral dilemma as he was unsure of the results of his to-be-successful assault on that town and his inability to recognize, by language/dress, those who were his and civilization's enemies. He asked an expert on morality and was told, “Tues-les tous. Dieu reconntdea les sein” (“Kill them all. God will know who belongs to Him”).

The lessons to be learned from this piece of history are:
1.That we in the West have gone past that kind of theology for decision making
(For better or worse as theology does present a good basis for morality and civilization in other areas);
2.The same and ancient use of deadly force is, every day and throughout the world, used by Muslims to justify terrorist bombings and such horrid acts as occurred on “9/11”; And,
3.That terrorists hiding among those who protect them are liable for destruction even if that means some “collateral damage” by reason of death and injury to
those who do not expel them from their homes and towns who may, as is the teaching of the Koran and Hadith (The sayings of Mohammed), be performing a “religious duty” in protecting such thugs.

I think that there is (On the part of anyone who understands both history and current affairs) that organized or disorganized Islam has been at war with us and attacking all other (And superior) cultures for 1400-years AND that most Muslims support those attacks (Remember the dancing on Arab streets on arrival of the news of “9/11”?) as such has been commanded by Allah. This presents us with a major conflict of forces (Like the totally materialistic forces of Communist China and Secular Europe VS. the rest of the world) for which the only solution may be the destruction one side or another.

Again looking to history, we find the “Roman Solution” (Rome then being a republic), using “Mecca” as the symbol of Islam, and we should declare, again-and-again, “Mecca delenda est” (“Mecca must be destroyed”).

To that we should add the Crusaders' (Who waited some hundreds of years before counter attacking the aggressive forces of Islam and, although they lost the Holy Land, freed most of Europe from the slavery which is Islam), cry of “Deus vult! (“God wills it!”).

If Communist China does not again follow the examples of past history and destroy itself as a nation, we may have to look at such principles and positions for it---And, the other Secular Humanists who infest and are attacking the real basis of civilization as did the Cathari.

Save $ On Book On Islam

THE ARTICLE BELOW SUMMARIZES THE NOTED BOOK. THEREFORE, IF YOU CANNOT GET IT FROM A PUBLIC LIBRARY, AT LEAST DIGEST, UNDERSTAND AND APPLY THE LESSONS GIVEN BELOW.


E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

April 28, 2006, 6:24 a.m.
Not for the Feint of Heart
Robert Spencer asks the hard questions about Islam...and answers them.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer (Regnery, 233 pp., $19.95)

It is often said that in order to keep polite company polite, we must refrain from speaking of religion and politics. Yet, the two are not equals in the hierarchy of politesse. Political debate may be unwelcome in many settings, but no one clears the room by observing that the great totalitarian evils of the 20th century, Communism and fascism, were directly responsible for incalculable carnage.


Not so when it comes to religion — or, at least, one particular religion. The past three decades have borne witness to a rising, global tide of terrorist atrocities, wrought by Muslims who proclaim without apology — indeed, with animating pride — that their actions are compelled by Islam. Nonetheless, the quickest ticket to oblivion on PC's pariah express is to suggest that the root cause of Islamic terrorism might be, well, Islam.

That the possibility is utterable at all today owes exclusively to the sheer audacity of Muslim legions, who have rioted globally, on cue, based on what even their exhausted defenders must now concede are trifles (newspaper cartoons and a tall tale of Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay leap to mind). But the largest obstacle to any examination of creed — larger even than a growing alphabet soup of Muslim interest groups — has been the same Western elites who are the prime targets of jihadist ire. In the most notable instance, President Bush absolved Islam of any culpability even as fires raged at the remains of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. And, although attacks before and after that date have been numerous and widespread, it has become nearly as much an oratorical staple as "My fellow Americans" for U.S. politicians to begin any discussion of our signal national security challenge with the observation that Islam is a "religion of peace" — a religion that has surely been perverted, "hijacked," and otherwise misconstrued by terrorists.

No more, insists Robert Spencer, the intrepid author and analyst behind the Jihad Watch website. Spencer's theory is as logical as it is controversial: when the single common thread that runs through virtually all of the international terrorism of the modern era is that its perpetrators are Muslims, and when the jihadists themselves tell us that their religion is the force that drives them, we should seriously consider the probability that Islam is a causative agent, even the principal causative agent, of their terrorist actions. This he undertakes to do in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)..

One might once have assumed it inarguable that an ideological battle cannot be fought with complete inattention to ideology. But that has been the case with the war on terror, and Spencer's mission is to rectify that with a simple, user-friendly volume that walks the reader through elementary facts about Islam — its tenets, its scriptures, and its history, including most prominently the Koran and the life and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed. It is a tutorial shorn of wishful thinking.

While Spencer does not declare that anyone adhering to Islam is a terrorist waiting to happen, he clearly believes it is a perilous belief system. Make no mistake: This is a disturbing account. And most disturbing is that the truly arresting passages are not the author's contentions and deductions. They are the actual words of Islamic scripture and the accounts of several revered events in Islamic tradition.

The story by which Islam achieves hegemony over much the world and the loyalty of millions of worshippers, very nearly extending its dominion throughout Europe, is a story of military conquest. Mohammed, deemed the final Messenger of Allah — superseding the prophets of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a group in which Muslims include Jesus — was a warrior, in addition to wearing the hats of poet, philosopher, and economist, among others.

The Koran, Spencer argues, does not teach tolerance and peace. At best, he explains, there are isolated sections which urge Muslims to leave unbelievers alone in their errant ways, and which counsel that forced conversion is forbidden. But these must be considered in context with other verses, such as those directing that Mohammed "make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them," and that the faithful "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them," and so on.

What are we to make of the seeming contradiction? Obviously, self-professed moderate Muslims point often to the benign passages, while terrorists echo the belligerent ones. Who is right? Spencer vigorously contends that the militants have the better of the argument. The Koran, which is not arranged chronologically but according to the length of its chapters (or "suras"), is theologically divided between Mohammed's Meccan and Medinan periods. The former, from the early part of the Prophet's ministry when he was calling inhabitants of Mecca to Islam, are the soothing, poetic verses. The latter, written in Medina after Mohammed was ousted from Mecca, are the more bellicose. The Medinan scriptures come later in time and, sensibly, overrule their predecessors.

This is bracing in at least two ways. First, even if there were a logical counterargument to this (and let us pray that someone comes up with a compelling one soon), it underscores the seeming impossibility of proving wrong those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam. When they claim justification in their religion for merciless attacks and other brutalities (such as beheadings), they are not imagining it out of thin air — it's right there in black-and-white. The reformers may try gamely to minimize or reinterpret, but they cannot make the words go away.

Second, those words are taken to be the words of God Himself. The Koran is not like the books of the Old and New Testaments. It is not thought to be "inspired," to be related through intermediaries whose assumed human gloss opens up possibilities of reinterpretation or correction. Muslims believe the Koran contains the unvarnished teachings of Allah, dictated directly to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel. This renders all the more challenging (to put it mildly) the burden of discrediting terrorist operatives who claim to be doing precisely what they have been divinely instructed to do — and doing it in the service of jihad, the "striving" which, Spencer explains, is a bedrock obligation of all Muslims.

Islam, Spencer elaborates, aims at nothing less than total domination — first, unrivalled supremacy in any territory that is (or was at any time) under its sway, and, ultimately, spreading throughout the world — whether by persuasion or by sheer force. The bleak choices presented to non-believers in the Muslim lands are to accept Islam (and its attendant social system, which is particularly oppressive of women); to live the grim life of dhimmitude by submitting to the authority of the Islamic state (permitted to practice other religions under tight regulations and only if the jizya, or poll-tax on non-Muslims, is paid); or to die. The bleak future for non-believers in the rest of the world is a state of war until they are subdued, as — beginning in the seventh century — were the Byzantine Empire, Persia and the Christian strongholds of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Consistent with the "Politically Incorrect" model, Spencer spends much of his time deconstructing "PC Myths." These involve not only the sugar-coated conventional wisdom about Muslim doctrine but also what he sees as the cognate project to revise Islamic history.

The "Golden Age" of Islam, for example, is, according to the author, a gross exaggeration. He does not deny that there were grand achievements under caliphates that ruled various places from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries, and Muslims themselves, he acknowledges, were responsible for important advances in mathematics and, to a lesser extent, medicine. Nonetheless, Spencer counters that many of the epoch's achievements either occurred despite Islam (particularly in the areas of literature, art, and music) or are better understood as the accomplishments (especially in science and architecture) of better educated peoples whom Muslims conquered.

Islamic culture, for Spencer, thwarted great possibilities. Muslim philosophers were singularly responsible for preserving and explicating the work of Aristotle — but over time, these philosophers were read primarily in the West, because waves of anti-intellectualism and a conceit that rote study of the Koran was sufficient education overtook the Islamic world. Medical advance was stymied because of traditions that forbade or discouraged dissections and artistic representations of the human body. Spencer does credit Islam with causing the Renaissance and the discovery of the New World — but only indirectly. The conquest of Constantinople caused Europeans (like Columbus) to seek new trade routes to the East and hastened the flight of Greek intellectuals to Western Europe.

A final "Myth" Spencer endeavors to explode is the legacy of the Crusades. While not gainsaying Christian excesses and brutality, the story, he asserts, is far from one-sided. It is just that, consistent with today's victimology leitmotif, only one side gets told anymore.

The comprehensive narrative, Spencer insists, stretches back for 450 years before the supposed eleventh century start of the Crusades — back to the conquest of Jerusalem in 638. "The sword spread Islam" and ultimately repressed the formerly predominant non-Muslim populations that are tiny minorities in what are now Islamic countries. The Crusades, Spencer relates, were largely defensive struggles to protect threatened Christians. He does not dispute that the political agenda of recapturing what had been eastern Christendom loomed large, but he does contend that the legends of forced conversions, insatiable looting, and mindless atrocities are largely overblown.

This is not a book for the feint of heart. Nonetheless, it is well done and extremely important. Much of current American policy hinges on the notions that there is a vibrant moderate Islam and that it must simply be possessed of the intellectual firepower necessary to put the lie to the militants. These are the premises behind the ambitious projects to democratize the Middle East, to establish a Palestinian state that will peacefully coexist with its Israeli neighbor, and to win the vast majority of the world's billion-plus Muslims over to our side in the War on Terror.

They are, however, premises that are more the product of assumption than critical thought. In this highly accessible, well-researched, quick-paced read, Robert Spencer dares to bring that critical thought to the equation. The result is not a promising landscape, but it's a landscape we must understand. You really can't fight an ideological battle without grappling with the ideology.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Pope Patrick---A Book Review

De Rosa, Peter
Pope Patrick
Doubleday & Co.; New York; 1997

This book caused be to laugh out loud---Something I seldom do. It also gave me nightmares AND I am NOT prone to such! You may get others' impressions of this book on line or through major public library catalog systems. However, here is my take on it.

A very low ranking (Cardinal Deacon) member of the College of Cardinals, a “pure Irishman”, is elected Pope as the other Cardinals cannot agree on any candidate. In his one year, Christmas to Christmas, reign he imposes (Or, inflicts) real Christianity on the Church and the World.

There are many who will NOT like this book. Professional Catholics (NOT Catholic professionals), especially the higher clergy and their ultra-right supporters will recoil at the clear showing of every pimple and wart on the Earthly Body of the Church and the cancers within it. American “liberals” will not like it as it exposes the same for our nation in terms of amoral and immoral life styles, while American politicians will flinch at their portrayal and businessmen at their very Unchristian greed and arrogance. Professional Englishmen will hate the painted picture of their leaders and of their horrid mistreatment of the Irish. Europeans will snicker at all of the above---Until their venality and emptiness is clearly exposed by this author using Italians as examples of the “European mindset”.

Most of all, Muslims will hate this work as it so clearly exposes the hatefulness, rigidity and worship-of-death inherent in the “Mullah mentality” through the fictional interview with the head of a fundamentalist Islamic empire and the last chapters of this book, which were the part thereof which gave me unusual nightmares. (I will let you read this entire book, if you dare, to understand that last statement!)

What can be learned from this book?
1.That the Church is in great need of change and redemption; But, it has always
been so as it is a institution begun by The Christ but administered by we, very weak, human beings.
2.That the USA and Western Civilization has lost track of ethics, morality, honesty and the true, God-centered. Reason for our existence.
3.That European culture is no longer the fortress of Western Civilization; But, is so centered on each individual's search for immediate gratification as to make it a cesspool rather than the glorious idea it once was.
4.Every Muslim and Islam itself may, at any time, revert to the most horrid interpretation of Mohammed's teachings and may not be trusted to value death more than humanity, sharia (Islamic law) rather than justice and the worship of an unpredictable, anti-human and cruel Allah rather than a merciful, yet just, God.

Historical Wisdom RE: War

I have often touted the maxim, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it!" However, history is not just facts (eg Names, dates, places) but is also the lessons that people have left to us as our legacy---If we will attend to those words.

As to War, I offer the following two examples and lessons.

From Vegetius, a fourth century Roman:
"Qui desiderat pacem, paeparet bellum.
"Let him who desires peace prepare for war."

And, from the USA's own and respected philosopher, John Stuart Mill:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral
and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person
who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made
and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

The first quote is most certainly in the Roman style: Short, compact and expecting the reader
to understand history and humanity.

The second also relies on the understanding of unwritten concepts, all too neglected in this degenerate age, of "duty", "honor" and "the common good".

The problem with most "liberals" (ie Most journalists, most professors and too many others) is that they do not understand or learn from history and most certainly do not understand humanity and the concepts upon with Mr. Mill based his statement.

Thought, Word & Deed As Prophesy

The three “kings” who came to Bethlehem and worshiped the new born Christ were likely out of Persia (Now a degenerate, Mohammedan, Iran) and heirs to a rich culture which produced the concept of an eternal war between good and evil and, perhaps, more importantly, the true ancestors of the real knighthood of nobly thinking, speaking and acting warriors.

In fact, the motto of those ancient Persian knights was: “The thought well thought; The word well spoken; The deed well done”.

Could it be that those ancients were, in their own way, prophets as to the coming of the Christ? Could it be that the Thought of God, as to our salvation, the Word spoken of by John and the actions of Jesus, as well done as any in the history of the World are the glorious reflections of that precept out of Persia?

Jurisdiction Of USA, Immigrants & Their Children

Illegal immigrants have avoided the full jurisdiction of the United States by their unauthorized entry into this nation. Those persons who remain here after their visas have expired or are otherwise in violation of such visas are also outside of that jurisdiction.

THEREFORE, the children of such persons as born in the United States after such illegal entry or violations are NOT entitled to the privilege of citizenship in accordance with the Constitution Of The United States.

THEREFORE, any such child may be challenged as to voting in the USA or obtaining a US passport or any other right of citizenship in this nation.

Those persons/parents are, themselves, not eligible for any protections (Except, perhaps, against “cruel and unusual punishment”) under our Constitution and may be detained as long as is necessary and expelled from the USA upon any finding of illegal entry or violation of visa.

Do I Hate Muslims ?

Do I hate Muslims? Heavens, NO! I care for them so much that I would send those of them who commit horrid crimes in the name of Islam out of this world and to the Judgement of God before they commit more such sins against humanity.

Immigrants: Order, Law & Justice

The USA is, as are most basically civilized nations (Please see below) is built as a pyramid, that most stable of structures, of justice, law and order. Justice, being the highest of such values or forces is at the top and is the hardest to reach. Law provides the framework so justice may be sought and, if possible, that high goal achieved. Law is impossible to obtain except on the base and basis of an ordered society.

If we erode the underlying layers of order and law, then justice will collapse and slide into the chaos of injustice. Today's “liberals” are lazy! They wish to achieve a just society without working first to build the stable structure described above. They fail to realize that their “justice” for some is injustice for those who rely on all three building blocks of society. Their “justice”, by offering “open borders” and “amnesty” to illegal immigrants, is an unjust taking away of rights and privileges earned, through hard labor and patience, by legal immigrants and the children of such. It is a typical “something for nothing”, “free lunch”, delusion common to the unthinking, knee-jerk reaction, liberals. [You will find that the most emphatic of opponents to open borders and amnesty are those recent and most excellent immigrants who obtained visas and came here in an orderly manner and in obedience to our laws.]

If anyone wishes real justice for all in this nation, then let immigrants enter here in an orderly manner and in obedience to our democratically passed laws. The USA is a nation based on the contributions of LEGAL immigrants and their descendants.

(The USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and like nations have some chance of reaching that golden goal of justice as they still, with difficulty, maintain their basic structures of order and law. Saudi Arabia has order and law but no justice; A situation shared where the Islamic codes prevail. Such nations as the Sudan and Mexico have no basis in order or enforceable laws and have criminal gangs ruling in portions of their nations.. The present day Iraq is attempting to establish, at the least order and laws and may, if severe Islamic law is avoided, be able to reach for justice.)

Something Strange About Muslims

There is something very strange about Muslims. When they are not murdering women, children and other innocents of the “unbelievers”, they fully occupy themselves with killing each other. If you doubt me just look at what Sunni and Shi'ite followers of Mohammed are doing to each other in today's Iraq OR look at the overall history of the conflict between those two groups.

Of course, Christians went through two-plus phases (Eastern VS Western Churches; Catholic VS Protestant movements; And, conflicts between the many Protestant Churches). We Christians have, I hope, learned that God does not approve of “murdering for God”.

It does not appear that Muslims have learned that lesson. Although the teachings of Mohammed forbid his followers from attacking each other, Muslims have set up a culture which worships death more than life; A culture known for its murders, rapes, genocidal actions, robberies and the destruction of real religions and real civilizations.

Islam is also not known for any originality in inventive thought or actions. Its only historical claim to a “golden age” was based on borrowings from India, pre-Islamic Egypt/Persia and Greece---A golden age (Like all other positive movements in Islam) which resulted in a return to the horrid and basic teachings of Mohammed and to the culture of death and crime as noted above.

Until such time as the vast majority of Muslims will publicly declare that those teachings of the Koran and the Hadith (The collected sayings of Mohammed), which support and encourage such crimes are NOT the will of Allah, and govern their lives accordingly, there is little hope for Islam OR for the others Peoples who must share the world with Muslims.

Until Western journalists, government officials and ministers of non-Islamic religions are willing to acknowledge the above, truthful, statements (And base their policies on them), there will be little hope to safeguard true civilization OR to guide our Muslim brothers and sisters into light.

Every Theft A Little Murder

The below is parapharsed and modified from another author (Jack Vance?)

All property represents the time individuals and collectives of people create by the honest application of mental or physical effort. Every theft takes from such persons that part of their lives which has been expended in such honest efforts.

Every successful theft takes from such honest workers that part of their lives, not to be replaced, invested in such creations of property. THEREFORE, every theft is a little murder and every thief a small-scale murderer.

This is true for all: Common thiefs (Robbers, burgle rs, shoplifters); Politicians who do
“pay-for-play” wrongful actions which take unneeded money from the tax payers; University professors and administrators who misuse their positions to the costs of students, their families and other citizens; Enron-type executives; Drunken or reckless drivers who increase our insurance rates; Drug users whose related thefts are often forgotten; Illegal immigrants who poof up, at a disproportional rate, our criminal justice and public health costs; Prostitutes who cost us in health and social service tax monies; And, all other like criminals.

Perhaps, such thiefs should be punished as murderers when the sum of their thefts reaches the average life-time income of the workers in the USA.

The Victory Of Christian Reason

FROM THE HERALD SUN (AUSTRALIA)

Our sacred things
Paul Gray
20feb06

RELIGION in general – and Christianity in particular – is crucial to society. So I've argued for years.

Now a US academic has unexpectedly trumped me.

Rodney Stark is his name.

Stark's new book, The Victory of Reason, is a 235-page show-stopper, unpublished in Australia as yet, but which promises to revolutionise many of our contemporary political and moral debates.

And if it doesn't do that, it will at least make a lot of people angry.

Western society in 2006 is fractious to the point of fisticuffs over matters of reason and religion.

If you doubt this, take two hot debates: the death penalty cases in Indonesia and the parliamentary vote on RU486.

I believe -- as a god-given matter of principle -- that every human life is sacred from conception.

Therefore, RU486 should be banned.

Legalising it will lead to the destruction of the sacred, quite apart from its effect on women's health.

A sock on my jaw, anyone?

Now -- since I also think that as every human life is sacred, even the nasty ones, the Australians convicted of drug-running in Indonesia must not be executed -- would anyone else like a go?

Of course, not everyone will share the Christian premise on which these arguments are based.

But if Christianity is irrelevant, why should anyone get angry?

Which leads me back to The Victory of Reason.

It has has angered many people in the US and looks set to do the same here by proving that not just the health of civilisation, but its very existence of civilisation depends on Christian faith.

Stark is no bible-thumper. He's a Baylor University professor of social sciences and a Berkeley graduate.

His earlier work -- using secular data -- explained how Christianity took over the Roman empire in pagan times through its superior values.

"Christianity created Western civilisation," he authoritatively asserts.

"Without a theology committed to reason, progress and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: a world with many despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys and pianos."

Christianity is such an obvious story of civilisational success that you wonder why so many refuse to believe it.

As Stark says, rather than accepting the facts, many people now prefer to think Christianity has contributed nothing to civilisation except intolerance.

Of course, it's widely believed that, for centuries Muslim Arab civilisation kept the flames of civilisation burning while medieval Christian Europeans languished in the mud.

Stark upends that belief.

Yes, he says, Islamic scholars kept ancient Greek and Roman learning alive, but their culture didn't do anything progressive with it.

It was the "ignorant" Westerners, steeped in Christian theology, who developed the power of reason and applied it to making the world a better place.

Stark says the so-called Dark Ages of Europe are, in fact, a myth.

The Dark Ages were actually bright.

It was in this period that our modern ideas of the separation of church and state, non-hereditary and elected government, personal freedom, property rights and capitalism were born.

Stark lists some crucial Christian inventions of these "Dark Ages", including clocks and bells, deep-earth ploughs which created northern European agriculture and effective cannons which transformed warfare.

European "round" ships, and compasses, which could tell direction at sea, enabled international transport, communication and travel.

Meanwhile, Christian ideas about personal freedom and individual rights also caused the abolition of slavery and the enshrining of property rights for the first time in the Magna Carta, without which, Anglo capitalism could never have developed.

And it wasn't the later Protestant Dutch and English who invented goodies like capitalism and representative government, Stark proves.

It was the medieval Catholics of Venice, Genoa and other Italian city-states.

They did it by electing their town councils and pioneering modern manufacturing industries.

Today, Africans and Asians, including Chinese Communists, are converting to Christianity in vast numbers.

And Stark says it's not just for existential satisfaction but because of Christianity's appeal to reason and its inseparable link to the rise of the West.

"For many non-Europeans, becoming a Christian is intrinsic to becoming modern," Stark writes.

S TARK ends his revolutionary volume with a recent quote from a Chinese scholar who concluded it was not military, political or economic causes, but rather a religious one which explained the pre-eminence of the West throughout the world today.

"The heart of your culture is your religion -- Christianity. "That is why the West is so powerful," he writes.

Our society will remain a progressive and desirable place to live to the extent that it remains fundamentally Christian.

paulgray@skynet.net.au

"Discrimination" & Freedom

Perhaps I am out of touch with these times; But, I was raised with the lesson that "discrimination" meant making choices and, in fact, the best choices between what was good and what was not-good. I was taught to choose between: Good food and bad; Literature and trash waste of ink and paper; Constructive order and destructive disorder or chaos; Those moral and cultural values (And cultures) which support ordered and productive civilization VS. those which do the opposite; Between good rational thought and bad thinking habits; G ood emotions and sick ones; Freedom and slavery (Within or to self or to others); AND, all those other choices which are made OR should be made every day by both individuals and collectives of persons.

I see no reasons why I should not "discriminate" against: That part of "Black culture" represented by disproportionate murder, rape, robbery and other crimes AND such "music" as "ganstra rap" and such concepts that acedemic effort is "thinking "White"; Islam as a 1400-year old criminal and terrorist ideology (NOT a religion) based on the power of murder, revenge, rape, genocide, the destruction of civilization and real cultures and all the other horrors that it has brought to the world and still, to this day, still inflicts on humanity; And, its civilization destroying cousin "secular humanism" which uses "more legal" means to the same ends.

I see no reason I should not "discriminate" in favor of Western Civilization (Which has brought more scientific, engineering, philosophical, artistic and like progress than all other cultures) and of its prime and underlying force, Christianity and, more specially, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Peoples.

Most of all, I support to freedom to make such "discrimintions" against all of the "political correctness" limiting it in our world---Especially in the now self-destructive and once civilized area of Western Europe.

Legal Defintions Of Islam & Secular Humanism

I suggest that our law is very confused as to what is a religion and that definitions need to be in place as they are for what are "charitable" or "non-profit" organizations. Therefore, I suggest that the following two definitions be put into legal-effect by the Congress or the Supreme Court or both OR, if necessary, by amending our Constitution.

ISLAM: Not a religion; But, a 1400-plus year old terrorist-criminal ideology or force or loose organizaition based on the power of murder, revenge, rape, robbery, genocide, the destruction of cultures-and-civilizations AND the deprivation of equal social, legal, sexual, economic and other rights to non-members and all women.

SECULAR HUMANISM (AND, ATHEISM): Religion(s) based on the "theological" concept that there is no God nor gods and, therefore, entitled to neither less nor more rights or protections under the Constitution as are or would be any other religion.

DNA Testing NOT Infallible

If you believe or maintain that DNA evidence is “infallible” or beyond question I strongly recommend that you obtain a copy of the April, 2006 issue of Discover magazine and read “WHO'S YOUR DADDY? Don't count on DNA testing to tell you” (Pages 68-69).

The considerable and serious questions raised therein, as to DNA testing, are based on the following two problematic areas: Inaccurate (ie “Sloppy”) testing of the provided samples; And, the phenomena of persons (Called Chimeras) who DNA “signatures” vary according to the place from which samples are taken.

As to lab errors, you should recall the not too-long-ago flurry of news as to errors in medical testing due to errors committed by overworked technicians. It appears from the noted article that the same can be the case in paternity cases and, perhaps, in criminal cases. Defense attorneys and their opponents, should insure that DNA samples are: Kept in a legally AND scientifically secure manner; Divided up and randomly selected for testing so as to maintain a fair sample for independent testing if the defense requests it; And, used as evidence if-and-only-if the reliability of the testing agency and technician can be demonstrated. To do otherwise would leave the prosecuting/plaintiff's case open to serious challenges and doubts—In the trial court or upon appeal.

On the other hand, there may be cases where the innocence of convicted criminals was “proved” by DNA evidence may be in error IF the post-conviction sample were from (As is usual) a mouth swab and the original material was blood, semen, fingernail scrapings (Presumed to be from an attacker) or the like AND the accused is a chimera. To assure the validity of DNA testing in such cases, the source of tested materials should be the same in pre-conviction and post-conviction testing OR evidence presented that the accused is NOT a chimera.

I suggest that you keep the above in mind when reviewing news stories based on DNA testing.

I Wish I Had Written This--On Islam

F O R U M The Islamic double-standard by Nathanael Blake “There is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest.” — William F. Buckley Jr. With his usual insight, Buckley has located the dog that not only isn’t barking, but has apparently taken an eternal vow of silence. As Muslim mobs torch embassies and Muslim governments begin boycotts in response to European newspapers’ publication of cartoons mocking Mohammad, there has been little surprise at such savagery. There have been plenty of platitudes about respect and dialogue, many mealy-mouthed statements about the value of a free press, and bountiful bromides about tolerance. What there hasn’t been is any serious inquiry into the special status Islam enjoys. Let Christians so much as stage a peaceful protest against the latest “art” to blaspheme Christianity, and the liberal media chorus will issue a cacophony of condemnation. Not at the offending art, of course, or the tasteless artist, but at those bourgeoisie boobs who had the audacity to display disgust at the demeaning of their religion. Art, we are told, exists to break taboos and transgress standards. And Christianity is considered ripe for ridicule, as it is thought Puritanical and hierarchical, repressive and patriarchal. Islam, of course, possesses such attributes in spades (Sura 4:38: but chide [women] for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear … and scourge them), but it’s awfully gauche to say so. Also, doing so isn’t nearly so safe as Christian-baiting; there’s no Moral Majority equivalent of Mohammad Bouyeri, the chap who butchered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Islam. When Muslims worldwide go on violent rampages over a few caricatures published in a newspaper they would never have heard of otherwise, no one is surprised, and the storm of disapprobation that would arise if anyone else did such a thing is forestalled. Bluntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously: Muslims die in protests over supposed insults to Islam, ho-hum. Saudi Arabia has recalled its envoy to Denmark in response to the cartoon kerfuffle, blathering about how showing such disrespect for Islam is unacceptable. I would suggest to the Saudi government that if they want me to show their pedophile prophet (yes, Mohammad first had sex with his favorite wife when she was nine and he was in his fifties) any respect, they ought to make it legal to publicly practice my religion in their kingdom. Not executing Muslims who convert to other religions would also be good. Notes Victor Davis Hanson, “Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry … the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others.” We are not, he acridly points out, “to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.” In that case, the Vatican declined to call another Crusade in response. When I read passages in the Koran like Sura 8:40: “fight then against [the infidels] till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s,” I started doubting the “religion of peace” cant. Perhaps this “peace” is the peace of the grave. Christianity grew on the blood of its martyrs; Islam grew on the blood of its enemies. The only combatant a modern Muslim martyr is sure of killing is himself; he prefers that the others be women and children. Oh, I’m sorry; I forgot that those extremists don’t represent the majority of Muslims, who are kind and peaceable. I suppose that I’ll have to suppress the knowledge that the Palestinian majority just elected a terrorist group to govern them. There are, to be sure, individual Muslims who are quite nice, and even a few Muslim countries that aren’t run by tyrannical kleptocrats or theocrats. But on average, Islamic nations are oppressive and poor. The problem with Islam is that it is an immanentist religion. While Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God is not of this world, Islam holds that it is the duty of Muslims to bring the kingdom of God to this world. Islam allows no distinction between religious and governmental authority, and proclaims that good Muslims will always triumph over their infidel enemies. That’s hardly a metaphysical view that inclines toward tolerance and religious freedom. If Muslims are incapable of separating the political from the spiritual, then both the right and the left are going to have to examine some of their favorite views. Conservatives need to take a hard look at whether the Muslim Middle East really can be remade in a free, democratic image. I used to think so, but now I’m skeptical. Liberals, meanwhile, need to consider if their vision of multiculturalism is really possible, or whether it will succumb to what Leszek Kolakowski called “The self-poisoning of the open society.” Finally, the “moderate” Muslims that are constantly touted need to demonstrate that they have the will and ability to lead their religion out of barbarism. Nathanael Blake is a senior in microbiology. The opinions expressed in his columns, which appear every Wednesday, do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Barometer staff. Blake can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.

A Psalm For Today AND Future Times

PERHAPS, WE SHOULD CHANT THIS PSALM EVERY DAY UNTIL THE FORCES OF ISLAM AND MILITANT SECULAR HUMANISM ARE DEFEATED AND ONLY BRIEF FOOTNOTES IN OUR HISTORY BOOKS.

Psalmus 143 (144)	Psalm 143 (144)
1 Benedictus Dominus Deus meus qui docet manus meas ad proelium digitos meos ad bel lum	1 Blessed be the Lord my God, who teacheth my hands to fight, and my fingers to war.