Islam’s Religious Exemption From Criticism

Joe Palooka Comic

During the financial crisis of 2008, one of the pressing questions of the day had to do with whether or not various giant corporations—AIG, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, GM, and others—were too big to fail. The consensus among policymakers at the time was that these companies had to be bailed out by the government, or else the global economy would collapse with them.

A similar question can be raised with regard to Islam. Is it too big to fail? Would its collapse bring chaos in its wake? Judging from their behavior, most policymakers seem heavily invested in Islam’s survival. Their reasoning goes roughly as follows: Islam is a religion; religion is a stabilizing force in society; therefore, the flourishing of Islam is vital to the stability of the Muslim world. Hence, the consensus view is (and has been for a long time) that it is desirable to prop up Islam and provide bailouts when needed.

The bailouts come in the form of financial and military aid to various governments in the Muslim world. The assistance also comes in the form of “vouchers” for Islam’s good character: assurances by world leaders that Islam is a peaceful religion, assurances by religious leaders that it is a model of interfaith tolerance, and assurances by educators that “jihad” is an interior spiritual struggle. Keeping Islam afloat has become such a high priority that Western critics of Islam often find themselves facing fines or even jail time. In most of Europe, you can safely wave a “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” poster in the face of a policeman, but if you are a non-Muslim and you observe that Islamic law allows for beheadings, you’ll be standing before a magistrate the next day on hate crime charges. For his own part, the President of the United States vowed to protect the good name of Islam from “negative stereotypes.”

Initially, the moral support went to Islam, and the financial and military support went to Muslim governments—many of which were not particularly religious. That changed with the Obama administration. The policy all along had been to support moderate, stabilizing governments, but with the advent of the new administration, the definition of “moderate” underwent a change. On the assumption that religion makes for moderation, the more religious factions—such as the Muslim Brotherhood—were now assumed to be the more moderate ones. Consequently, the Obama administration threw its support behind the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood-type groups who were attempting to overthrow secular governments in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria. Likewise, the administration strongly supported the rule of Recep Erdogan in Turkey, even though Erdogan was in the process of transforming Turkey from a stable, secular state to an Islamic state.

Moderate? It doesn’t look that way now. As it turned out, the U.S.-backed Islamists quickly proved themselves far less adept at stabilizing their countries than the regimes they replaced. Whatever their drawbacks, the secular, authoritarian rulers appear, in hindsight, to have been the more moderating force; and one of the ways they maintained stability was by keeping Islam in check. They acted as a restraining force on the more violent manifestations of Islam with the result that Christians and other minorities enjoyed relative security.

One of the primary arguments for providing life support to Islam is that it’s a stabilizing force in the Middle East and elsewhere. But if that’s not the case, should we still want Islam to succeed? If Islam is a destabilizing force, wouldn’t the world be better off without it? And since Muslims are the primary victims of Islamic violence, wouldn’t they also be better off without it? This is not to suggest that we should consider going to war against Islam, but that we should consider withdrawing the support that keeps it viable.

Let’s draw an analogy to another globe-spanning ideology—communism. Take the case of Soviet-bloc communism. Should we have wanted it to succeed or fail? Considering the oppressive nature of communism, it’s surprising how many in the West had mixed feelings about the question. Many Western elites had the same attitude toward Soviet-bloc communism as they do today toward Islam. Like Islam, Soviet communism also seemed permanent—an inevitable force of history with which, it seemed, we had to come to terms. Western apologists for communism were willing to grant that Soviet communism had its faults, but that was because it was a misinterpretation of true communism. It needed reform, yes, but the basic model was sound. Yet, for all its Western cheerleaders, Soviet communism did fail, and it failed in large part because Western leaders stopped making accommodations with communist ideology (as they had during the Carter administration) and began to challenge it instead.

The analogy to Soviet communism limps, however, in one crucial respect. Soviet communism was not a religion. In fact, many attributed the evils of communism to its godless nature. As with the Nazi threat which preceded it, communism was perceived to be a political, not a religious, movement. Although Hitler tried to revive pagan-Teutonic mythology and although Stalin encouraged a religious-like cult of personality around himself, no one in the West thought of Nazism or communism as legitimate expressions of religion.

It’s a different story with Islam. Islam is looking more and more like a world-threatening ideology, but it is more immune to criticism than either Nazism or communism because it is a recognized and long-established religion. To challenge it is to court charges of anti-religious bigotry. In addition, something in our conscience makes us reluctant to reprove a fellow religion.

We are conditioned to have a favorable view of religion—especially other people’s religion. It somehow doesn’t seem right to contemplate Islam’s failure. To get around this difficulty, some critics of Islam contend that it is nothing but a political ideology and ought to be labeled as such. But this rebranding effort is a difficult sell because, by most standard definitions of the term, Islam does qualify as a religion. To most people, moreover, it certainly looks like a religion. The pagan-like symbols and ceremonies of the Nazis were clearly ersatz, but the same can’t be said of the centuries-old observances of Muslims. When people prostrate themselves in prayer five times a day, it’s hard to make the case that what they’re doing is nothing more than a power play.

The truth of the matter is that Islam is a hybrid: it’s both a political ideology and a religion. And although the political side of Islam may turn out to be every bit as dangerous as Nazism or communism, the religious side provides considerable protection from criticism. Because of its religious nature, it seems improper to engage Islam in the kind of ideological warfare the West waged against fascism and communism.

Yet the threat to the West and to the rest of the world is, by all appearances, increasing. Egyptians, Nigerians, Kenyans, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and others are finding it difficult to arrest the spread of radical Islam within their borders. In Europe, Islamization moves on apace, and no one has found the formula for resisting it. In Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has proclaimed the creation of a new caliphate state, declared himself caliph, and has called on Muslims worldwide to join him in waging war against infidels. We hear a lot about all the different forms of Islam, but the idea of the caliphate is that there should be only one unified Islam. Like communism, the caliphate is intended to be a borderless community—a trans-national and ever-expanding empire of true believers. That’s because, like communism, Islam aspires to be a universal belief system.

Unlike communism, however, Islam has the advantage of conducting its proselytizing activities under the banner of religion. During the Cold War, communists did not have the benefit of being able to set up recruitment and indoctrination centers all over the free world. Yet, in effect, Islam does. Mosques are not just places of worship; they are often centers of political activity and, not infrequently, of jihad activity. As a popular Muslim poem puts it, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.” That may seem like a bit of poetic exaggeration, but it is taken seriously in the Muslim world. Recep Erdogan went to jail for quoting those lines when Turkey was still a secular state. That he is now the leader of that country provides a good indication of which way the wind is blowing.

Of course, for a non-Muslim to even hint at the possibility that mosques might serve such purposes is to invite accusations of Islamophobia and bigotry. Likewise, to suggest that there are similarities between Islam and communism or between Islam and Nazism puts one on the fringe of acceptable discourse. Which goes to prove the point: Islam’s religious status puts it beyond criticism. You can criticize very radical Islamic radicals and very extreme Islamic extremists—just as long as you add that, of course, their activities have nothing to do with the religion of Islam.

When I was a boy, one of the more popular comic strips was “Ham” Fisher’s “Joe Palooka.” Palooka was a heavyweight prize fighter, and about as clean-cut, noble, and patriotic as a comic strip character could be. Next to his boxing skills, Joe’s greatest strength was his integrity. It was also his chief weakness because his opponents invariably took advantage of it. One that I recall was a burly brawler named Ruffy Balonki. Ruffy used every dirty trick in the books, including eye-gouging and brass knuckles inside his gloves. He even used psychological warfare. On one occasion, he appeared in the ring with a large tattoo encompassing his expansive stomach. It was a heart-shaped tattoo, and inside it, in bold letters, was the word “MOTHER.”

As Ruffy correctly guessed, Joe’s sense of decency prevented him from landing any punches in that area. For round after round, and despite the pleas of his manager (and the silent pleas of comic strip readers across the country), Joe refused to hit Ruffy in what everyone knew was his weak spot. And, because he was thrown off his game, Joe took a beating for round after round. I don’t recall what it was that ultimately brought Joe back to his senses, but I haven’t forgotten the image of him rendered nearly helpless by his own sense of propriety.

Like Ruffy Balonki, the theology/ideology of Islam has some very large weak spots. But our sense of propriety, which is nowadays governed by the rules of political correctness, won’t allow us to even talk about them. In effect, the sensitive areas are protected by a large sign that reads “religion—do not touch.” The difference is, the struggle we’re being drawn into is not a boxing contest and if we lose it, we won’t be offered a rematch.

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. He is also the author of a new book entitled Insecurity. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and FrontPage Magazine. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The notion of Islam as a stabilising influence is not new. One has only to recall the efforts of statesmen like Bismarck and Disraeli to shore up the tottering Ottoman empire.

    In the event, it did collapse; Islam proved an insufficiently powerful bond to prevent the Arab revolt against Turkish rule and the Turkish revolt against Arabic cultural dominance. In other words, at that particular juncture, nationalism trumpted religion as a unifying force.

  • publiusnj

    The problem is that you can’t beat something with nothing. Islam is not teetering on the edge of destruction. If anything, it is militantly on the march. What does the “West” (notice I didn’t say Christendom) offer the Arab and broader Muslim Street in competition? Not Christianity; that is NOT allowed throughout so much of Dar-Islam except to those already born there and identified as Christians subject to constraints on their freedom of religious expression. Anyway, the “West” could not support any religion as an alternative to Islam given the West’s militantly secular prevailing ideology.

    So, the West instead offers “modernity.” Modernity is at best a mixed bag. Freedom of Expression and Religion? Sure, to some degree (except maybe if you are unwilling to hire transgendered people for your religious organization because your religion sees that as problematic). Yet Muslims look at modernity and see some dark sides to what they see as license: Pornography, a breakdown of the family and most recently, “Gay Marriage.” Is it any wonder they want to come here and change this country to what they consider the World of Peace.

    None of which is to say that I disagree with the idea that Islam is a major problem. We just need to view the “West” as something that has very big warts in the eyes of the Muslim Street.

    • DJ Hesselius

      Since the Muslim world is accepting of child marriage, I’m not too impressed with claims that Muslims are “pro-family” and “pro-life.” The West has warts, many, many warts. So does Islam, especially in family life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6U2nrRJ4HU

      • publiusnj

        I agree entirely; there are all sorts of problems with Muslim family practices. Long before one even gets to female circumcision, there are littl things like polygamy.

        However, the Western World has strayed so far from any sense of morality that the Muslims see little value in “the western way of life.”. One great example is that the Muslim Street takes a look at the Western World and sees its “leader” more concerned with pushing Gay Rights than even in defending America’s position in the World. So, the Muslim Street says: “we can roll this guy. We’d never want to be associated with his view of the “fruits” of modernity, such as Gay Marriage, Transgendered Rights assured through the new Executive Order, etc. So, we are not getting on board with that. Might as well stay Muslim and we know if we push back militarily, he’ll just fold up like a cheap valise. So, let’s roll.”

  • P2H

    I stopped at “….this is not to suggest we should go to war against islam….”.

  • LRC

    I have no idea what Mr. Kilpatrick is trying to do here. To walk through the paragraphs….

    His comments about the financial propping up of Islam can and should be applied to Christianity also. Favoritism has always been shown to religions that seem to appeal to the engines that run an economy. Christianity has surely enjoyed such financial and political favoritism. Why not Islam? Politicians are continually making bad choices in regards to religions; the who, what, when, where and why issues can be a serious struggle for any political or secular group to understand in its full measure. And yes, there is always 20-20 hindsight by which naysayers can hang their adversaries out to dry.

    Mr. Kilpatrick then goes on to openly declare that Islam is some form of evil, and if we should all be Christian and not destroy it in warfare, we should at least deny it any support that would continue its viability. Has he any idea of the chaos and death of millions of innocents that would take place by such a universal declaration? He proceeds to bolster his argument with words like communism, Nazi, and pagan; in effect lumping Islam in with such ideologies.

    Mr. Kilpatrick then wanders into a cave and asserts, “The truth of the matter is that Islam is a hybrid: it’s both a political ideology and a religion.” Since when has any religion not been a political ideology in one form or another. To separate the state from the religion is an absurd concept of being. All religious and philosophical thought and practice affects how one engages in politics; directly and indirectly. Just because we Americans put up a false facade of separation of our American government and Christianity does not make it so. That billboard is flashy but meaningless.

    I suspect that Mr. Kilpatrick is more frustrated politically in regards to the current American trends in politics. Well, I’m no fan of those trends either. The Western side of the world has been engaging in some pretty stupid maneuvers; thinking themselves genetically brilliant and infallible in their human judgment. I just don’t see how Islam is to be blamed for that. Yes, Islam has some very contrary concepts that has pervaded into a culture that has permitted a blossoming of immoral and deadly values. It is most important to excise them out, and the world community should help Muslims do so. I just don’t see where that means we should condemn Islam as a religion.

    I find it most curious what God has up His sleeve in regards to this matter. Was it not He who put the world in motion in a manner that would bring this all about? What was God doing when He sent off Hagar and Ishmael, and what does Genesis 17:20, really mean?

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      I’m afraid I’m having trouble understanding what you intend to do here. What do you mean by the “false façade of separation” between American government and Christianity? Likewise. please explain what it is to be “genetically brilliant” – I’ve never encountered that expression before. And what are the “stupid maneuvers” that you see the West engaging in? As they stand, these remarks don’t make sense.

      • LRC

        First, excuse my choice of words if they seem too abstract or lacking clear meaning. I often condense my thinking.

        The false facade is just that. As a society with a governing body, Americans have established a principle that the religious nature of a citizen should have no force upon its governance, and vice versa. That’s the First Amendment. However, it can never be a reality simply because one’s faith always affects how one thinks, and one’s thinking is always expressed in one’s politics.

        As to “genetically brilliant” I was perhaps alluding to the inflated mindset of a Western, civilized society who has constructed a belief of the natural superiority of its citizens. It is the common trait of all ascending societies. They always see themselves as solely responsible for their successes and thus attribute it to their “genetics”.

        “Stupid maneuvers” refers to what Mr. Kilpatrick spoke of when he noted that the US-backed Islamists were far less adept at carrying out stabilizing their countries than the previous authorities. I have to agree with him on that point.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Thanks, but I’m afraid I’m still in the dark. If I understand the First Amendment, it booth prohibits the government from establishing a tax-supported “official” church, such as the Church of England is in Britain, while at the same time guaranteeing the right of citizens to worship according to their individual preferences without interference from the government. I don’t see how that is a “false façade,” as you put it.

          Similarly, I don’t see where or by whom the “inflated mindset” of western superiority is being propagated – surely not in most American higher educational institutions, where students are much more likely to learn that Western society is racist sexist, imperialist, “islamophobic,” etc.,etc. I’m afraid I haven’t encountered an instance of anyone attributing the “success” of Western society to genetic superiority. You may have a point in all of this, but I’m afraid it’s still giving me the slip.

          • JP

            Glenn,
            I don’t think LRC even knows what he’s talking about. He admits that religion is deeply rooted in an average human. And then he complains that the First Amendment is a farce because, in his view religious thought somehow corrupts. Ergo, the First Amendment is an absurdity. Not sure what his line of logic is. I don’t know if he believes that the religious impulse is so strong as to make a human a blithering idiot, or if he believes the Framers never took the 1st Amendment seriously. I think he tries to hard to sound urbane and intellectual.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Well as I said, I’m afraid I’m still in the dark. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming.

          • Tim S.

            Glenn, this is just an aside, but please don’t confuse “freedom of religion” with “freedom of worship.” They are not the same thing. The First Amendment talks about the right of freedom of religion. That means we can follow the tenets of our faith in the public forum. Freedom of worship means we can worship God in our churches and in our homes however we want; this is much more restrictive and what I believe this administration wants us to think what the First Amendment means. But it isn’t.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Right, thanks. The exact language is the “free exercise thereof.” We certainly don’t want the French version of “secularism,” which seems more and more attractive to many liberals.

        • ponerology

          Your mistaken if you think the goal of either the U.S. or the factions of what appear to be Islamists is to “stabilize” any area within the mid-East. The globalists are running this show and they do not want stability. That is plain to see. They want instability and plenty of it. They want the mid-East for the Zionists and the transglobal, mafia corporations. Same goes for the oil and gas-rich ‘stans’. They want mass migration into Europe and the U.S. to finish off Christendom. They want Africa to be handled by the Asian bloc. (China is heavily investing in S. Africa and the sub-Saharan.) The supposed conflict between Islam and Christianity is a side show distraction. There was no conflict until you were told some sheik (who was handled by the FBI) supposedly bombed the twin towers in 1993 and then, within 2 hours of the first bombs going off in the towers on 9/11, the only name that was being uttered across all media was ‘Bin Laden’..’Bin Laden’, over and over on every media outlet. No evidence, just talking heads insisting it had to be him (because we’re experts and we say so.) Years later it’s nonchalantly admitted that Bin Laden and the whole Al-Quaeda scam are the brainchild of the CIA back during the Russian/Afghanistan war. In addition, within days of the 9/11 scam, you’re told, with great somberness and gravitas, “They hate our freedoms”. Yeah, sure they do.

          • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

            Very good.

    • JP

      “To separate the state from the religion is an absurd concept of being.
      All religious and philosophical thought and practice affects how one
      engages in politics; directly and indirectly. Just because we Americans
      put up a false facade of separation of our American government and
      Christianity does not make it so. That billboard is flashy but
      meaningless.”

      Please inform us all of how to contact the Office of the Church of Christ in the Congressional Directory. Or, where in our Statutory Law can we find the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Does the Pope have an office in the EOB? Do you really believe your own nonsense, or are you just trolling?

  • FernieV

    I disagree with the thought that the Western governments are supporting Islam. Any staff of the State Department or Foreign ministry is aware that there is no one Islam: there are MANY shades of often incompatible versions of this religion, with many different shades in terms of attitude to violence to achieve its means.

    Besides, I wake up daily to the shouts of the imams of nearby mosques calling their faithful to prayer. I do not see Islam as a religion that needs support. I see it quite strong with adherents that are fully committed to its tenets.
    What the Western governments are doing is simply to deal with the governments of Islamic countries one by one, as each one has its own challenges. Naturally the Western governments want to minimize the friction with countries that can turn very violent against the Western interests. US in particular is interested in good relation with Muslim countries from which it can derive benefits. The rest it simply ignores.

    • JP

      One cannot ignore Islam’s bloody borders. The Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria, and India are all examples of what happens when an Islamic nation borders a non-Islamic nation. I would also throw in China and Russia (Yes, these 2 nations have their “Muslim” problem). Also throw in Uganda and Chad.

      And while we’re at it, let’s look at Europe. Just a few days ago violent protests erupted in Paris (over Gaza), and in European nations over 1000 No-Go Zones exist. If one travels to Great Britain, he will find East London a veritable Muslim enclave where no infidel travels unless he is dressed appropriately (especially if one is female), and gay men should avoid entirely. Similar enclaves exist in Manchester. In France the no-go zones go by the name, “Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS” (Sensitive Urban Zones). Besides the Paris suburbs, Marseilles, Toulouse, and Lyons have large no-go zones where police no longer patrol. The same can be said of Italy, the Netherlands, and Memlo Sweden. This isn’t friction between cultures; it’s a full blown social upheaval. In Muslim controlled areas the Rule of Law has been replaced with Sharia Law. The laws of the host nation no longer apply.

      For the tenants of Islam is Jihad -whether it’s personal or political. I find it hypocritical that the same people who denounce Christianity in general, say nary a word about Islam. In Dearborn Michigan, one can hear the daily cal to prayer, which is piped across outside loudspeakers. If a local Catholic Church piped the rosary in similar fashion all hell would break loose. I suppose fear does that to people. No one will admit it (especially the Secularists and religious agnostics); but, they are deathly afraid of Muslims and the disruption and violence they bring.

      • FernieV

        Wow! I am amazed that they allow noisy mosques in the USA! In the country I leave, Nigeria, the noise is allowed everywhere except in the capital, Abuja.
        I guess that Muslims start flexing muscles when they are in a majority. Otherwise, they are very “tolerant”. But, again, this may be a blind generalization, because I count among my best friends very tolerant Muslims who have no problems in having a practicing Catholic as friend.

        • DE-173

          “I guess that Muslims start flexing muscles when they are in a majority. ”

          Long before that. All that is required in a critical mass plurality.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            With the help of a blind, sequestered intellectual elite permanently hostile to the institutions that sustain them, and with a warped notion of “tolerance of other cultures.” Useful idiots was the term someone once gave such people in another historical context.

            • DE-173

              Indeed.

  • Glenn M. Ricketts

    There are some parallels with the 1930s and later, such as the impenetrable, willful blindness of the “peace movement” in Western Europe and the US to the reality of Adolf Hitler’s rearmament of Germany and his accompanying territorial ambitions. No, the problem lay with profiteering munitions manufacturers and “warmongers” like Winston Churchill or Charles De Gaulle.

    Even worse, of course, was the free pass given to Stalin and Soviet communism by the intelligentsia, media and academic elites in the same venues. When I endeavored to describe Stalin’s massive purges, arrests, deportations and wholesale executions to a class some years ago, a very earnest middle-aged lady, much given to “tolerance” and appreciation of other cultures responded that we really had no grounds for criticizing Stalin: after all, we had the McCarthy era, didn’t we? And to this day, Hollywood has never made a single film – repeat, not a single film – that even alludes to, much less depicts, the deprivations and mass brutalities of Stalin’s Gulag. Not one.

    So it is at present: Islamic terrorists who blow up churches, engage in routine “honor killings,” board air liners with concealed bombs or impose Shari’a are really not surprising – what did you expect with all of the “islamophobia” that’s so rampant in the West?

    • CR89

      You should have asked that silly woman how many people Joe McCarthy had murdered or put in gulags. Then, you might have suggested that she read “With God in Russia” for a lesson on what actual tolerance is all about.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        I did. She replied that all of those Hollywood screenwriters “never worked again.” So: Hollywood screenwriters getting fired = millions getting shot. Unfortunately, she was serious. But then many in the academy see the Stalin era exactly as she did.

        • CR89

          St. Augustine was exactly right when he said, “And so it is that the punishment for a disordered mind is its own disorder.” How can such egregiously stupid people like her ever be reasoned with? What is it about their “religion” – tolerance, diversity, equality, etc. – that makes them not realize what a danger they are to themselves and the rest of us?

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            I wish I had an answer to that question.

          • John200

            All my life I have known people who could not think more than 10 seconds ahead; could not think for themselves; could not delay gratification; who were imprudent in multiple ways. I found no way to move them forward, even a few who had identified the flaw in their own thinking.

            • MarcAlcan

              All my life I have known people who could not think more than 10 seconds ahead; could not think for themselves

              How true!
              Clear thinking is what has gone out the window when “feelings based” discoursed was let through the door.

  • guest

    Islam is to religion as Planned Parenthood is to life.

  • Alan Napleton

    What a great article. I wish it would appear in the Editorial pages of the New York Times.

    • CR89

      The NYT is owned and operated by exactly the kind of cowards who have brought the world to this dangerous situation regarding Islam.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Which is why the article would never appear there.

  • mollysdad

    The formula for defeating Islam, which has proven itself to be a threat to the peace of the world, is given by the Jewish concept of holy war against Amalek, which is found at Exodus 17, Deuteronomy 25 and 1 Samuel 15. This concept was carried over into Christianity by the Catholic Church and supported the crusading tradition over eight centuries. Another part of the formula is that, when you are dealing with savages who will take advantage of your moral standards, is to throw the rule-book away. See further http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obama-and-putins-savage-world-order/

    • Watosh

      An Israeli Middle East scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University Has a solution that ought to find a receptive audience among some of the contributors here. He recently said on an Israeli radio program, “The only thing that can deter terrorists like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or mother will be raped.” Well isn’t that the way to deal with savages? In America we found a way to deal with our savages so they were no longer attacking us. It is just a matter of throwing away the book. Of course Israel has never kidnapped Palestinian children, they have merely arrested them and put them in prison where some, maybe quite a few even, unfortunately succumb to various illnesses there. A couple Palestinian children, actually around the same age as the Israeli’s who were kidnapped and murdered, that is to say teen agers, in my chronology, children according to Dr. Kedar’s description, were shot dead by IDF snipers just before the Israeli teen agers were killed. It is claimed they had been participating in a protest, and they may have, anyway this was all captured on a video. But Moslems are all savages.Well if one’s existence is threatened, or when a nations existence is threatened they are justified in throwing away the book and doing whatever it takes to ensure their country is preserved. This allows people to do a lot of things that normally would be morally condemned. It is a loophole for those constrained by moral considerations when these considerations are inconvenient. Yet Moslems can be cruel, but I think they think their existence is being threatened. Before 1967, they weren’t doing any suicide bombing or shooing Americans in the Middle East, in fact I believe we had pretty good relations with Muslim countries.

      • HenryBowers

        But we conditionally intend what we threaten, and some things it is not okay to intend.

        • Watosh

          Of course, though I am puzzled at the “But” at the beginning of your statement. I am not sure what that is supposed to signify.

        • DE-173

          Never let facts get in the way of a good rant, Henry.

          • HenryBowers

            Which facts?

            • DE-173

              Yours.

              “But we conditionally intend what we threaten, and some things it is not okay to intend.”

          • HenryBowers

            Oh, you meant his rant, I get it.

  • BillinJax

    The few liberal and secular progressives who have had the decency to ask why the “moderate Muslims” never come out to protest the utter cruelty of the jihad activity which has been spreading like wildfire in the last five or six years now have the answer boldly and vividly clear for them. ISIS embodies the terror all Muslims have known exists within the heart of their religion and has been longing and waiting for a leader it could rally around and had the determination to establish world wide Sharia Law by what ever means necessary including eliminating Muslims unwilling to follow him.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      I don’t see how to get around – although the folks to whom you refer keep trying – that the sword has been the instrument of spreading the faith from Islam’s beginnings. Judaism was founded by patriarchs and prophets, Christianity by Apostles and Martyrs. The founders of Islam, by contrast, were warlords.

    • ponerology

      “ISIS” is a tool of the so-called ‘western’ powers just as Al-Qaeda was and is their tool. Read preeminent ‘experts’ like Zbig Brzezinski on the matter.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Yes, it’s more than bewildering.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        Absolutely right. And love your screen name. It’s a great book. Explains Israel to a T.

  • http://eisbrener.info/blog Michael Eisbrener

    Treat people the way they want to be treated. Muslims should be offered the opportunity to convert to ANY other religion or die.

  • Fred

    As I read your article(s) and observe the threats of death against those who dare to speak out against Mohammed around the world, I couldn’t help but wonder if you have been personally threatened. I pray not, and I pray for your well-being. You are brave. No point in regurgitating old points about the blatant flaws of Mohammed because regardless of his naked human qualities and weaknesses his followers are not going to accept the truth any more than they are to change allegiance to their favorite soccer team. Saying Islam is evil is a provocative statement liking poking a stick in the eye, but I would welcome anyone in challenging that to refute why more Muslim-on-Muslim killings/plunder/mayhem in the name of it has been perpetrated than any other human endeavor in the history of man. And no, I am not blind to the dark periods of Un-Christian behavior within the church either. Satan is strong is he not, but Christ is the ultimate Victor. I hate to strike an apologetic tone, but I wonder sometimes at our own failings as Christians to do what Christ calls us to do in evangelizing. In the West I would argue that we have become quite comfortable living our lives of faith more or less privately and cower from spreading the good news even to our immediate neighbors. And yes, some of that is especially rooted in fear of retribution from our own government directly or in their support of immorality. I never thought I’d live to see a day when our so called leader would say God bless you for all that you do to the world’s largest infant murder enterprise in the name of choice, or force us to accept through law the sin of homosexual acts and marriage as normal. I want to vomit, but it has opened my eyes to who I truly serve while weakening the bonds of unholy allegiance. It’s impossible to separate politics/power/money from the equation when talking about empires, but I can’t help but reflect often on Jesus’s statement “Ye cannot serve God and “mammon”, recognizing that describes an attachment to earthly things beyond just money. I became a Catholic Christian late in life and in many ways feel like I’m just coming out of a cocoon, and I struggle each day in my love for Jesus Christ figuring out what he calls me to do. I don’t think it’s to sit and watch as a bystander.

    • BillinJax

      Fred, it is so obvious you are a true brother in Christ and fellow Catholic and there are many like you who, with heavy hearts, feel the need to get to the front of the battle for both the sole of America but more importantly to also bring the light of Christ and His Church to those whose faith has been dulled or diluted by Evil’s darkest deception and favorite pastime, infiltrating the clergy. May I repeat a recent post of mime for you.
      If nothing else this episode illustrates just how far the so called Church Militant, that’s us folks, have retreated and allowed progressive catholics (little C) to use modern liberal language and political correctness to gain the upper hand in defining the where and how our doctrines and teachings should be inserted into or denied entry to our culture. Also it tells us we can no longer sit on the sidelines in the battle against moral relativism.

      “Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and
      religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears
      to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests,
      your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
      —-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, before the Knights of Columbus,
      June 1972

      • Fred

        It’s nice to hear others appreciate Archbishop Sheen. I listen to his old recordings frequently and marvel and his amazing ability to communicate the truth boldly. Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone like him alive today who could look evil in the eye and call it out without relatistic rubish. We don’t, so yes we cmust an carry his spirit forward. Hopefully it’s not just me projecting my feelings, but I do sense that more people are getting fed up with the status quo so to speak and are not content to watch the evil one tighten his grip.

        • BillinJax

          My personal favorite is Archbishop Chaput. He is can articulate the truth without loosing you with theological rhetoric.

    • Tim S.

      Excellent statement!

  • DE-173
    • Fred

      Way too funny, perversely unfortunately.

  • thebigdog

    Political correctness = cultural Marxism

    Now there is a water war:
    http://www.worthynews.com/17235-islamic-state-campaigns-water-war-to-drive-out-christians

  • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

    Israel is murdering, deliberately targeting, hundreds of children, but no words from Kilpatrick on this. It’s Hamas’ fault! Human shields! Words right from the devil’s mouth.

    • Guest

      You think they are equivalent issues? Why?

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        Catholics must stand up for Palestinians being murdered according to Zionist, racial ideology.

        • Evagrius

          I think you wondered onto the wrong website. I think the address you are looking for is here: http://www.cair.com/

      • Watosh

        Israel is our ally, we regard Hamas as our enemy, therefore if Israel murders Palestinian children by using flechettes in high tech bombs that we have supplied it is okay, whereas when a home made rocket fired by Hamas in retaliation for Israeli air attacks with F-16 fighter planes happens to kill Israeli’s as it does on some rare occasions, (just look at the statistics,) that is an outrage. That is why they are not morally equivalent. Moral equivalence would imply we and/or Israel are justified because we are good, so we can’t be judged by the standards in which we judge those we don’t like.

        • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

          Watosh. This is excellent. Send me a note, would love to know you

          • DE-173

            Wonderful. A PHO sleeper cell.

        • Guest

          Not following at all. The essay does not praise Israel’s war tactics.

          It is not that Israel is so morally correct it is that Islam is do morally incorrect.

          • Watosh

            True, that is what the essay is about. The thing is I do hear lot of Islam bashing despite that, as Mr. Kilpatrick points out, in some quarters there is an attempt to not give the Moslems here offense, whereas you never hear anyone in the mainstream media criticize Israel, and Israel also does things that are morally incorrect. I just wanted to provide a little perspective in view of some of the virulent comments about Moslems that appear among the comments here. As I have always maintained the Moslem religion is false, and Moslems can be cruel. At the same time in the last hundred years the “Christian” West has killed many, many, many more Moslems than Moslems have killed citizens of Western countries. One comment is that Moslems represent a threat to peace in the world. In a recent world wide poll, the United
            States was regarded as the nation representing the biggest threat of peace to the world. I mean I can’t go along with the idea all Moslems are incorrigibly evil and the world would be well rid of them in order to obtain peace. Has any Moslem country deposed a democratic elected head of any Western country, and installed a puppet to see that that country does our bidding? But that has happened. Has any Moslem country invaded a western country and utterly destroyed that country? Well a number of Moslem countries have been destroyed as a result of Western actions. For those reasons I don’t think Moslems deserve as harsh a treatment as they are given. At least they don’t tolerate anyone making fun of their “prophet,” whereas here in the U.S. we have TV shows on major networks that are blasphemous. So bad as the Moslems are, I felt they are still people, and sons and daughters of Abraham after all.

            • Evagrius

              Certainly if the only history you know is what is taught in U.S. public schools, then, yes, no Muslim country has ever invaded a western country and utterly destroyed that country. On the other hand, if you have the slightest passing acquaintance with Islamic history, then you would know that all of North Africa, from present day Morocco, through Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, through Palestine, up the Mediterranean coast through Lebanon, then Syria to Asia Minor (present day Turkey) was WESTERN (being part of the Roman empire) and CHRISTIAN until it it was “invaded,” yes there is that inconvenient word “invaded,” conquered, and occupied by Arabs. The religion, culture, and languages of the natives of these regions were systematically “destroyed” (and there is that inconvenient word “destroyed” again) by the those conquerors. Let’s also not forget the invasion and conquest of the Visogothic kingdom (i.e. Modern Spain/Portugal) in 711; the invasion of France in 717, 718, 721, 725, 732, 734, 743, and 759, the invasion of the Baleares in 798; the frequent invasions of Anatolia (present day Turkey) throughout the 7th and 8th centuries, of present day Italy throughout the 9th century, along with Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, and Crete; the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia; the Ottoman conquest of Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Romania, the invasion of Hungary, the sieges of Vienna, etc etc. etc. So, yes, please do spare us anymore Dhimmi-catholic internalization of CAIR talking points along with your Walt Disney version of Islamic history.

              • Watosh

                I knew some righteous soul would respond by quoting historical examples 1500 years or more ago in order to justify the demonization of all Moslems and hype the Moslem threat. Americans see threats everywhere today, despite their bragging that they are the most powerful nation that ever was on the planet. (Now I am an American, but one raised to believe that Americans treated people with respect and didn’t boast.) Evagrius there are many things that happened in the distant past, and many horrible things were done by many different groups. I am sure you are aware that the Romans invaded many countries including those of Europe. Some historian observed that the Romans came and destroyed the land and called it peace. Then the Visigoths invaded lands occupied by Roman and native inhabitants in Spain before the Moslems invaded. The Mongols and the Huns invaded Europe too. And some times Christian states allied themselves with Moslem states. Venice did, and France did at one time too. And then there was the terrible sacking of Constantinople when it was the capitol of the Christian Byzantine Empire by Christian crusaders responding to the Byzantines cry for help from the Christians in the West. What I remember from history was that most all invaders did bad things. Many were on a mad quest to create an Empire, a quest the U.S. is currently engaged on. This quest, or failing if you will, history shows, has been an attraction for all peoples and countries that are in a position to bring other countries into submission. You have made a big thing about Moslem invasions in the distant past, but my comment deals with the here and now, on what is happening today. Of course I see in you closing statement an attempt to attack me personally by linking me to groups that you have an extreme disdain for. I don’t even have any idea what Dhimmi-catholic signifies, nor what CAIR stands for. If you disagree with me all you have to do is state your disagreements, but there is no need to demonize me. That does appear to have become an American trait, demonizing those you disagree with. Maybe it is a result of political invective seeping into every aspect of discourse. But it is regrettable.

                • Evagrius

                  First, let’s start from the beginning, you posed what you undoubtedly thought was a rhetorical question: “Has any Moslem country invaded a western country and utterly destroyed that country?” I answered it, and now you object to the time frame. I didn’t, however, create the time frame. Moslems claim that their religion was founded in the 7th century (although there is no evidence to support a date any earlier than the late 8th century, and the best evidence we have strongly suggests the 9th century). If we can’t talk about these foundational conquests, then we can’t talk about Islam, because these conquests are part and parcel of Islam. The accounts of these conquests inform Muslim jurisprudence, infuse Muslim literature, and remain an integral part of Muslim identity to this very day.

                  You claim that Muslim invasions are in the “distant past?” and imply that examples from “1500 years” are irrelevant to the “here and now”? Although the Arabs began their conquest in the 630s, the last siege of Vienna by the Ottomans was in 1683. By 1683 twelve out of the thirteen original colonies had been settled (VA 1607, MA 1620, NH 1623, NJ 1623, NY 1624, MD 1633, RI & CN 1636, DE 1638, NC 1653, SC 1663, and PA 1683). If 1683 is so far in the distant past that it is hopelessly irrelevant than Americans can stop celebrating Thanksgiving. While they are at it, they can also stop celebrating the Incarnation of the Word of God on the 25th of December each year, as that happened well over 1500 years ago (again outside your chronological boundaries). For good measure, Catholics may as well also stop saying the Nicene creed (formulated in 325), by your logic.

                  If you read my comment carefully, I made no reference to the “demonization of all [or any] Moslems.” Nor did I “hype” any Moslem threat. Moreover, it’s odd that you consider “dhimmi” to be an insult, or even “demonization.” It merely refers to the subordinate/inferior legal status of conquered peoples under Muslim jurisprudence. Christians in lands conquered by Muslims must recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic (Sharia) law, and pay a special tax (jizya). Other features of Dhimmitude include: the prohibition of bearing arms, of ringing church bells, building or restoring churches, synagogues or temples, riding of horses; the legal inequality of Christians both in taxes and civil and penal law; denial of citizenship to Christians; the disallowing of Christian testimony against Muslims in court; the prohibition of self-defense against Muslims; the requirement of wearing of special identifying clothes. In addition, any criticism of Islam is punished as blasphemy with death. Muslims on the other hand are under a religious obligation to publically humiliate Dhimmis whenever possible. According to Islam, however, Jihad brings peace and happiness to conquered peoples (i.e. dhimmis).

                  Dhimmis who internalize these Islamic doctrines self-censor themselves, not only by abstaining from making any criticism of Islam, but by ignoring the first thousand years of Islamic history and instead focusing exclusively on the 19th and early 20th century when many Islamic regions fell under European control, in order to better propagate the “Islam religion of peace” mythology for Western consumption. If the shoe fits …

                  • Watosh

                    I tried to indicate that many bad things happened in the past and not were all caused by Moslems. I have never denied that Moslems were intolerant of other religions. (I also realize that Catholic teaching, which I fully support is that in a country organized under Catholic principles, other religions had restrictions placed on them. This is logical, if the Catholic religion is the true region other religions should not be allowed to mislead the public. Therefore, while I realize Moslem religious beliefs are erroneous, I can at least recognize that their intolerance of other religions has a rational basis, as is the Moslems believing that their religious beliefs should influence their laws. I cringe when American Catholics say they will not let their religion affect their interpretations of any laws, like JFK did and Antonin Scalia said recently during an interview.) So while I feel Moslem beliefs are erroneous and harmful even, I recognize that this attitude of theirs follows from their sincere, but misguided beliefs.) History ought to provide a perspective. I might remind you that despite the Moslem restrictions placed on other religions, a statement made by the head of the Catholic Chaldean Church in Iraq 11 years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “We are a ruined Church. 1400 years of Islam could not uproot us from our land and our churches, while the policies of the West [have] scattered us and distributed us around the world.” Not even the Mongol invasions and overrunning of Iraq was able to cause this to happen. Would this have happened had we not invaded Iraq?
                    And now, I didn’t specify a time frame, I didn’t think that was needed since we are dealing with current events. And because I was discussing current events does not mean I believe we should ignore the past nor abolish Christmas observance. And should you ever wish to “hype the Moslem threat” the comments you presented would do nicely. Like Obama recently said, “We know the Russians shot down the Malaysian civilian airliner,” and then moments later he cautioned people to wait for the results of the investigation before assigning blame. And you say you were not hyping the Moslem threat, well what were you doing reciting all the evils done by moslems from the time they were founded to the present.? What was your purpose in doing that then? Implying, which you did imply did you not, emotionally that I was of those dhimmi-Catholics mindlessly repeating some CAIR (whatever that stands for) talking points is hardly a measured response to the points I have raised in an attempt to supply some perspective and rationality to the subject.

                    • slainte

                      Watosh, you have presented a balanced and even handed perspective of the unfortunate clash between middle eastern combatants. You did so clearly and respectfully with civility as your guide notwithstanding being targeted and demonized in the process.
                      .
                      I suppose the truth about the conflagration in the middle east lies somewhere between the competing claims of Evagrius and Kozinski.
                      .
                      I choose to ignore both of them as their rhetoric is extremist and inflammatory.

    • Evagrius

      Libyans are murdering Libyans, Sunnis are killing Shia in Saudi Arabia, Sunnis and Shia are killing each other in Yemen, Columbians are killing Columbians, Russians and Ukrainians are killing each other, Dinkas and Nuers are killing each other in South Sudan, Christians and Muslims are killing each other in the Central African Republic, Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq, Syrians are killing Syrians in Syria, Muslims are killing Muslims in Pakistan, Muslims are killing Christians in Nigeria, Somalis are killing Somalis in Somalia. What do you al these conflicts have common? Each has more casualties than Palestinians in Gaza, but “no words from you on this.” Words right from the mouth a Hamas troll.

      • DE-173

        “Words right from the mouth a Hamas troll.”

        To quote CadaveraVeroInnumero from below:

        “Palestinianism the Religion” is just that – a religion. One cobbled together mostly for the benefit of fools and leftist. Palestinianism (anti-Zionism) is a polite way for otherwise decent folk to be anti-semitic.

        Except if you read Kozinski long enough, you are hard pressed to find decency.

        • Evagrius

          I can only hope Kozinski get bored here and goes over to Commonweal to continue his proselytism for HAMAS.

          • DE-173

            Agreed.

          • slainte

            Can the two of you leave together?

    • sparrowhawk58

      Hamas is the group that is to blame for all those dead Palestinian kids. The Israelis are entitled to self-defense, like any other sovereign nation under attack. Like them or not, they ARE phoning targeted houses to warn the occupants to get out prior to missile attacks. These Hamas cowards want to hid among terrified civilians to carry out their nefarious plans, but the Israelis get to react. They are reacting with as much humanity as they can, more than is deserved, while sending a message and penalizing Hamas’s bad behavior.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense

        By Chris Hedges

        July 24, 2014 “ICH” – “Truthdig” — If Israel insists, as the Bosnian Serbs did in Sarajevo, on using the weapons of industrial warfare against a helpless civilian population then that population has an inherent right to self-defense underArticle 51 of the United Nations Charter. The international community will have to either act to immediately halt Israeli attacks and lift the blockade of Gaza or acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to use weapons to defend themselves.

        No nation, including any in the Muslim world, appears willing to intervene to protect the Palestinians. No world body, including the United Nations, appears willing or able to pressure Israel through sanctions to conform to the norms of international law. And the longer we in the world community fail to act, the worse the spiral of violence will become.

        Israel does not have the right to drop 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bombs on Gaza. It does not have the right to pound Gaza with heavy artillery and with shells lobbed from gunboats. It does not have the right to send in mechanized ground units or to target hospitals, schools and mosques, along with Gaza’s water and electrical systems. It does not have the right to displace over 100,000 people from their homes. The entire occupation, under which Israel has nearly complete control of the sea, the air and the borders of Gaza, is illegal.

        Violence, even when employed in self-defense, is a curse. It empowers the ruthless and punishes the innocent. It leaves in its aftermath horrific emotional and physical scars. But, as I learned in Sarajevo during the 1990s Bosnian War, when forces bent on your annihilation attack you relentlessly, and when no one comes to your aid, you must aid yourself. When Sarajevo was being hit with 2,000 shells a day and under heavy sniper fire in the summer of 1995 no one among the suffering Bosnians spoke to me about wanting to mount nonviolent resistance. No one among them saw the U.N.-imposed arms embargo against the Bosnian government as rational, given the rain of sniper fire and the 90-millimeter tank rounds and 155-millimeter howitzer shells that were exploding day and night in the city. The Bosnians were reduced, like the Palestinians in Gaza, to smuggling in light weapons through clandestine tunnels. Their enemies, the Serbs—like the Israelis in the current conflict—were constantly trying to blow up tunnels. The Bosnian forces in Sarajevo, with their meager weapons, desperately attempted to hold the trench lines that circled the city. And it is much the same in Gaza. It was only repeated NATO airstrikes in the fall of 1995 that prevented the Bosnian-held areas from being overrun by advancing Serbian forces. The Palestinians cannot count on a similar intervention.

        The number of dead in Gaza resulting from the Israeli assault has topped 650, and about 80 percent have been civilians. The number of wounded Palestinians is over 4,000 and a substantial fraction of these victims are children. At what point do the numbers of dead and wounded justify self-defense? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000? At what point do Palestinians have the elemental right to protect their families and their homes?

        Article 51 does not answer these specific questions, but the International Court of Justice does in the case of Nicaragua v. United States. The court ruled in that case that a state must endure an armed attack before it can resort to self-defense. The definition of an armed attack, in addition to being “action by regular armed forces across an international border,” includes sending or sponsoring armed bands, mercenaries or irregulars that commit acts of force against another state. The court held that any state under attack must first request outside assistance before undertaking armed self-defense. According to U.N. Charter Article 51, a state’s right to self-defense ends when the Security Council meets the terms of the article by “tak[ing] the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

        The failure of the international community to respond has left the Palestinians with no choice. The United States, since Israel’s establishment in 1948, has vetoed in the U.N. Security Council more than 40 resolutions that sought to curb Israel’s lust for occupation and violence against the Palestinians. And it has ignored the few successful resolutions aimed at safeguarding Palestinian rights, such as Security Council Resolution 465, passed in 1980.

        Resolution 465 stated that the “Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The resolution went on to warn Israel that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

        Israel, as an occupying power, is in direct violation of Article III of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This convention lays out the minimum standards for the protection of civilians in a conflict that is not international in scope. Article 3(1) states that those who take no active role in hostilities must be treated humanely, without discrimination, regardless of racial, social, religious or economic distinctions. The article prohibits certain acts commonly carried out against noncombatants in regions of armed conflict, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It prohibits the taking of hostages as well as sentences given without adequate due process of law. Article 3(2) mandates care for the sick and wounded.

        Israel has not only violated the tenets of Article III but has amply fulfilled the conditions of an aggressor state as defined by Article 51. But for Israel, as for the United States, international law holds little importance. The U.S. ignored the verdict of the international court in Nicaragua v. United States and, along with Israel, does not accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It does not matter how many Palestinians are killed or wounded, how many Palestinian homes are demolished, how dire the poverty becomes in Gaza or the West Bank, how many years Gaza is under a blockade or how many settlements go up on Palestinian territory. Israel, with our protection, can act with impunity.

        The unanimous U.S. Senate vote in support of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, the media’s slavish parroting of Israeli propaganda and the Obama administration’s mindless repetition of pro-Israeli clichés have turned us into cheerleaders for Israeli war crimes. We fund and abet these crimes with $3.1 billion a year in military aid to Israel. We are responsible for the slaughter. No one in the establishment, including our most liberal senator, Bernie Sanders, dares defy the Israel lobby. And since we refuse to act to make peace and justice possible we should not wonder why the Palestinians carry out armed resistance.

        The Palestinians will reject, as long as possible, any cease-fire that does not include a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They have lost hope that foreign governments will save them. They know their fate rests in their own hands. The revolt in Gaza is an act of solidarity with the world outside its walls. It is an attempt to assert in the face of overwhelming odds and barbaric conditions the humanity and agency of the Palestinian people. There is little in life that Palestinians can choose, but they can choose how to die. And many Palestinians, especially young men trapped in overcrowded hovels where they have no work and little dignity, will risk immediate death to defy the slow, humiliating death of occupation.

        I cannot blame them.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        Netanyahu talking points .

  • Derek Schramm

    What are Islam’s weak spots that we should be talking about? Besides theological matters of faith (Nicene Creed versus Pillars of Isam) and origins of Judeo-Christianity versus Islam what are the weak spot that will convince people to be turned off by Islam? Women will have to wear scarves and loss of other rights and privileges? What else?

    • HA

      Where to start? There’s the benighted sharia passages on slavery (especially with regard to sex slaves) and human dignity. The sharia advocates who ban all music (yes, *all* music) and insist that chopping off hands and sex-slavery and wife-beating are essential and non-negotiable and scripturally-backed praxis and who are backed up by an extensive body of Islamic jurisprudence. Whereas Christianity has a long-standing tradition of theological development (for better and worse), true Islam has always meant returning to sola scriptura Koranic living, amputations included.

      Though atheists love to portray Christians as witch-burning jailers of Galileo and champions of obscurantism, the reverse is truer. I do not mean just the Mendels, and the Lamaitres — there are also the countless children educated by the clergy, and the fact that the entire concept of university learning is an offshoot of Christian seminary systems. That is ample testament that Christianity builds minds as well as saves souls. All that learning that Islam allegedly preserved from the ancients? Actually, it was for the most part preserved in Christian monastic communities.

      While Islam did promote intellectual development early on, it eventually declared (unlike Aquinas) that secular philosophy is incompatible with their faith. Islam “inherited” (i.e. conquered) the civilizational riches of many millennia: from Egypt, Greece, Sumeria, Persia, India… and in just a thousand a years, it has reduced it to sand and squalor, sustained primarily by petrodollars. On the other hand Christianity took a bunch of savages known for painting themselves blue and sacrificing each other under oak-trees, and transformed them into the most advanced civilization the world has yet seen. Are there Muslims whom any of us should be grateful to encounter who defy these conventions? Sure — millions of them. Are they better and more devout Muslims than those who do not? On the contrary, they are by and large the cafeteria Muslims.

      A man who goes crazy for Christ goes off like Francis and begins feeding the poor and tending to the sick. A man who goes crazy for Muhammad is as likely to pick up an assault rifle and look for opportunities to fire it.

      • Derek Schramm

        Thank you. I hope that all who read the original article read your message. I agree. Let’s compare a martyr for Christ, male or female, skips purgatory and gets to be with God, a martyr for Islam receives a harem of virgins, ludicrous.

        • HA

          Glad to be of service. There are
          numerous apostolates dedicated to witnessing to Muslims, perhaps most notably that of
          the Coptic priest Zakaria Botros, but embarrassingly
          few of them are Roman Catholic.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    What is worse is there isn’t one Islam anymore, no more than there is one Christianity. And like with Christianity after the reformation, the further away you get from center, the crazier it gets.

    • DE-173

      It has no center.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        It did at one time. At one time, there was Mohammed. After him there were the four great schools. But then came the Caliphate, and things began to get twisted- within a century of Mohammed’s death, the religion was fragmenting.

        But I’d point out the same thing happened to Christianity. It took the Nicene council to bring things back together- then the split in the empire to tear them apart a little bit, then the big bomb of Martin Luther sent us into 200 years of violent warfare.

        Likewise with Islam- the Caliphates were a destructive force, but they were also a unifying force for a time. But since the end of the Ottomans, that force has been missing; for the last 100 years and perhaps longer, al Wahhabi became their Martin Luther, and what we are seeing now is wars of Reformation.

        By the time they’re done, there will be 30,000 Islams.

        • DE-173

          Even if there was a Caliph, it would have no center, because it never did.
          Islam minus a billion adherents is just a cult, which I define as the unattested and discontinuous assertions of a single individual, who may or may not have existed.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Well, for that matter, so are Catholicism and Judaism, by that definition.

            The difference being that I can discern no reason nor loyalty nor faithfulness in the version of Allah painted in the Qu’ran (partially because Mohammed didn’t write the Qu’ran, his followers wrote down little snippets and stories they heard, and an early Caliph invented the rest and gave it an order, not in chronological order, but in order of shortest to longest). In fact, I’m reading a book right now that claims 99% of what is in the Qu’ran and the Haddiths, did not happen within Mohammed’s lifetime, and there’s about as much archeological evidence for him as for Father Abraham himself.

            • DE-173

              “Well, for that matter, so are Catholicism and Judaism, by that definition.”

              What??????????

              No way. Judaism wasn’t the unattested words of a single person. Abraham wasn’t the last word, he was the first. Isaiah, Moses, Ezekiael, Daniel, David, none were the last word. Each added to Judaism without nullifying the predecessors or claiming finality.

              The Messiah was predicted by the Jewish Prophets and identified by John and a Prophet.

              There was no seminal figure whose word was novel, first and last with a radical rupture from the past. (See Smith, Joseph)

              If there’s as much evidence for Abraham as Mohammed, that’s good for Abraham because he was born a long, long time before Mohammed.

              • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                Or it’s bad for Mohammed, as it means his life became mythology, really really quickly.

                • DE-173

                  Good point.

  • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

    There are no words to describe the unprecedented slaughter and brutality being aimed at 1.8 million defenseless and besieged Palestinian refugees by Israel in the 2014 Ethnic Cleansing of the Gaza Strip. What we are seeing is an unprecedented bloodbath. The brutal and sadistic murder of people, all civilian, mostly women and children and all innocent of any crime. These innocents are being slaughtered using experimental weapons that maim horribly. Banned chemical weapons, Gas bombs, white phosphorous, DIME Munitions, Fletchette bombs, the use of each, constituting a war crime. Each one of these weapons are being used on children and each are designed to inflict maximum pain and suffering. These exotic weapons are being wielded by an army who seem to view Palestinians with utter contempt and who are bent on killing as many of them as they can, and in as brutal a manner as they are able. And it is happening while the entire world watches. The Catholics, especially the leaders, who are silent on this massacre, or who deflect this grave issue to rant about Islamic bogeymen, or who, it is horrific to say, support the massacre, are morally disgusting.

    • Watosh

      It is always encouraging to discover an American who has not been bamboozled by the propaganda from our corporate controlled media and has the decency to object to slaughter of a people, even though this is not a popular stand.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        Thanks, Watosh. Only Muslims slaughter people, according to Kilpatrick and ilk, no matter what the facts are saying. It must be Hamas that is murdering children with bombs. It must have been Hamas that shelled four children playing on a beach in broad daylight.

      • Guest

        Watosh. This is excellent. Send me a note, would love to know you.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      “Palestinianism the Religion” is just that – a religion. One cobbled together mostly for the benefit of fools and leftist. Palestinianism (anti-Zionism) is a polite way for otherwise decent folk to be anti-semitic.

      That’s right, Palestinianism *is* a religion. As a religion, Palestinianism has it dogmas, its sacred fables, its martyred saints, its heresy hunters, its inquisitions. Even its sacramental blood sacrifices.

      I have seen the vicious, all-consuming hatred of Jews which pours like hellish lava from Islam. I have even seen how Christian Arabs can buy into it. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. On a Holy Saturday I saw it. In the basement, under the sacred Altar of Sacrifice – beneath Holy Lamps, the Tabernacle of our Lord waiting for the Paschal Lamb, and icons of the Theotokos and Her Son – I witnessed the worst of Jew-Hatred.

      As for hate and the cry for genocide: Who is organizing and attending the “Gas the Jews” demonstrations in Berlin, London, Paris, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Deerborn MI? The boiling, chilling hate fomenting from those rallies is born from and nourished by what?

      From the Koran. From the “perfect example” of the “perfect man”, Muhammad. From the mind and heart of Allah, himself.

      9/11 was Medina redone. A Muhammadan bloody thread strung itself from that inferno day when the Prophet massacred the the Jews of Medina to the falling of the Towers of New York.

      When Islam promises peace only upon the death of the last Jew and the trampling of the cross, we gazing into the very darkened heart of Islam – Into Allah’s mind

      Islam needs to be deconstructed. The Prophet Muhammad needs to be placed, along with the Koran, upon the table of an Muhammad Seminar where he and it can be gone over with a fine analytical comb.

      Better yet, Islam needs to have it Decline and Fall. A great one. And, unfortunately, it will be bloody. Mostly, Christian and Jewish blood.

      Besides being a political totalitarian ideology, Islam has the unique standing of being a Double Heresy: a Christian Heresy and a Jewish Heresy. It needs to be understood and treated as such.

      When one begins to know people who have been murdered by Islam, it clarifies the mind.

      I have had it with Islam

      _________________________________________________________

      You are right in one regard – about the bishops. I have lost all
      patience with a Church hierarchy which refuses to declare and declaim
      the truth. The absence of courage is monstrous. We need something more
      than declarations and press releases. Over 700 churches have been torched in
      Nigeria within the past few years, thousands of Christians murdered,
      raped, enslaved. The Ancient province of Nineveh has been washed clean
      of Christians – by their own blood and misery, There are crucifixions.
      There is the selling and trading of Christian girls, women – and boys.

      Where
      is Boniface when one needs the like of him, Popes Urban and Innocent?
      As for the latter, they are too busy hiring cardinals stuck in elevators
      in Montenegro with call boys.

      A bit of a cheap shot, I know. Yet, anymore
      – with so much that needs to be done – sometimes I don’t know where I stand regarding the Church. I just can’t push myself past that Uruguayan
      story.

      But, heck, who am I to judge?

      • michael susce

        But know that the stands you have taken as revealed by your many insightful and self-revelatory statements have powerfully impacted people like myself. Until you arrive in heaven, you will never know how many you have given inspiration to push past…..themselves. God bless, Michael

    • Evagrius

      You’ll have to explain what this has to do with Kilpatrick’s article. What is truly tiresome is inarticulate trolls like yourself who highjack the comments sections here to incoherently rant about topics that don’t even have the most tenuous relationship to Kipatrick’s thesis.

    • publiusnj

      Although TJK will call my remark “insensitive” or worse, there is an old saying that is of moment here: “people in glass houses….” And, if someone wants to say: “but the people dying aren’t throwing the bricks” the response is that their overlords, whom they have supported and allowed to take over their houses, started throwing the rockets and did so from locations secreted among the glass houses.

      The rockets are the equivalent of artillery. It is well established military doctrine that the best defense to an artillery attack is “counter-battery fire.” IOW, when one can pin point where artillery fire is coming from, the best defense is to pour one’s own artillery fire on the location of the enemy artillery battery. That is all the Israelis are doing.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        You’re defending mass murder.

        • John200

          So are you.

          There, now we can have a discussion. But first, look at your initial claims. Look for supporting facts. Look for a connection to Professor Kilpatrick’s article.

          That’ll take care of that.

        • publiusnj

          “Mass murder”? Hardly. Warfare always results in deaths, and the Gazan death toll is about 800 now. That is a lot larger than the Israeli death toll, but that is because the Israelis have had to get very good at fighting back when attacked. Simply put, the Israelis understand they are involved in a life and death struggle for survival. So they have learned the Art of War.

          To paraphrase George Patton: the art of war is not in dying for one’s country but in getting the other guy to die for his. Hamas tried to get the Jews to die for Israel, but the Israelis are doing a better job counter punching. As a result, civilians near the Hamas rocket tubes that have been targeted are unfortunately dying. The Gazans answer, though, should be to get rid of the people responsible for the state of war: their Hamas overlords.

          • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

            The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense

            By Chris Hedges

            July 24, 2014 “ICH” – “Truthdig” — If Israel insists, as the Bosnian Serbs did in Sarajevo, on using the weapons of industrial warfare against a helpless civilian population then that population has an inherent right to self-defense underArticle 51 of the United Nations Charter. The international community will have to either act to immediately halt Israeli attacks and lift the blockade of Gaza or acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to use weapons to defend themselves.

            No nation, including any in the Muslim world, appears willing to intervene to protect the Palestinians. No world body, including the United Nations, appears willing or able to pressure Israel through sanctions to conform to the norms of international law. And the longer we in the world community fail to act, the worse the spiral of violence will become.

            Israel does not have the right to drop 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bombs on Gaza. It does not have the right to pound Gaza with heavy artillery and with shells lobbed from gunboats. It does not have the right to send in mechanized ground units or to target hospitals, schools and mosques, along with Gaza’s water and electrical systems. It does not have the right to displace over 100,000 people from their homes. The entire occupation, under which Israel has nearly complete control of the sea, the air and the borders of Gaza, is illegal.

            Violence, even when employed in self-defense, is a curse. It empowers the ruthless and punishes the innocent. It leaves in its aftermath horrific emotional and physical scars. But, as I learned in Sarajevo during the 1990s Bosnian War, when forces bent on your annihilation attack you relentlessly, and when no one comes to your aid, you must aid yourself. When Sarajevo was being hit with 2,000 shells a day and under heavy sniper fire in the summer of 1995 no one among the suffering Bosnians spoke to me about wanting to mount nonviolent resistance. No one among them saw the U.N.-imposed arms embargo against the Bosnian government as rational, given the rain of sniper fire and the 90-millimeter tank rounds and 155-millimeter howitzer shells that were exploding day and night in the city. The Bosnians were reduced, like the Palestinians in Gaza, to smuggling in light weapons through clandestine tunnels. Their enemies, the Serbs—like the Israelis in the current conflict—were constantly trying to blow up tunnels. The Bosnian forces in Sarajevo, with their meager weapons, desperately attempted to hold the trench lines that circled the city. And it is much the same in Gaza. It was only repeated NATO airstrikes in the fall of 1995 that prevented the Bosnian-held areas from being overrun by advancing Serbian forces. The Palestinians cannot count on a similar intervention.

            The number of dead in Gaza resulting from the Israeli assault has topped 650, and about 80 percent have been civilians. The number of wounded Palestinians is over 4,000 and a substantial fraction of these victims are children. At what point do the numbers of dead and wounded justify self-defense? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000? At what point do Palestinians have the elemental right to protect their families and their homes?

            Article 51 does not answer these specific questions, but the International Court of Justice does in the case of Nicaragua v. United States. The court ruled in that case that a state must endure an armed attack before it can resort to self-defense. The definition of an armed attack, in addition to being “action by regular armed forces across an international border,” includes sending or sponsoring armed bands, mercenaries or irregulars that commit acts of force against another state. The court held that any state under attack must first request outside assistance before undertaking armed self-defense. According to U.N. Charter Article 51, a state’s right to self-defense ends when the Security Council meets the terms of the article by “tak[ing] the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

            The failure of the international community to respond has left the Palestinians with no choice. The United States, since Israel’s establishment in 1948, has vetoed in the U.N. Security Council more than 40 resolutions that sought to curb Israel’s lust for occupation and violence against the Palestinians. And it has ignored the few successful resolutions aimed at safeguarding Palestinian rights, such as Security Council Resolution 465, passed in 1980.

            Resolution 465 stated that the “Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The resolution went on to warn Israel that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

            Israel, as an occupying power, is in direct violation of Article III of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This convention lays out the minimum standards for the protection of civilians in a conflict that is not international in scope. Article 3(1) states that those who take no active role in hostilities must be treated humanely, without discrimination, regardless of racial, social, religious or economic distinctions. The article prohibits certain acts commonly carried out against noncombatants in regions of armed conflict, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It prohibits the taking of hostages as well as sentences given without adequate due process of law. Article 3(2) mandates care for the sick and wounded.

            Israel has not only violated the tenets of Article III but has amply fulfilled the conditions of an aggressor state as defined by Article 51. But for Israel, as for the United States, international law holds little importance. The U.S. ignored the verdict of the international court in Nicaragua v. United States and, along with Israel, does not accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It does not matter how many Palestinians are killed or wounded, how many Palestinian homes are demolished, how dire the poverty becomes in Gaza or the West Bank, how many years Gaza is under a blockade or how many settlements go up on Palestinian territory. Israel, with our protection, can act with impunity.

            The unanimous U.S. Senate vote in support of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, the media’s slavish parroting of Israeli propaganda and the Obama administration’s mindless repetition of pro-Israeli clichés have turned us into cheerleaders for Israeli war crimes. We fund and abet these crimes with $3.1 billion a year in military aid to Israel. We are responsible for the slaughter. No one in the establishment, including our most liberal senator, Bernie Sanders, dares defy the Israel lobby. And since we refuse to act to make peace and justice possible we should not wonder why the Palestinians carry out armed resistance.

            The Palestinians will reject, as long as possible, any cease-fire that does not include a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They have lost hope that foreign governments will save them. They know their fate rests in their own hands. The revolt in Gaza is an act of solidarity with the world outside its walls. It is an attempt to assert in the face of overwhelming odds and barbaric conditions the humanity and agency of the Palestinian people. There is little in life that Palestinians can choose, but they can choose how to die. And many Palestinians, especially young men trapped in overcrowded hovels where they have no work and little dignity, will risk immediate death to defy the slow, humiliating death of occupation.

            I cannot blame them.

            Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays onTruthdig, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.

            • publiusnj

              Although TJK was presented with cogent argument, he has responded with a long diatribe written by someone else. Because that diatribe ignores the fact that it was not the Israelis that started this battle, though, it misses the point. As I previously noted, the Arabs started a fight they are not winning, so they want to claim the Israelis are not fighting fair. Sending rockets over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in much the same way and with as little precision as the Buzz Bombs in WWII led almost inexorably to the retaliation that Hamas has brought down upon its subjects. The obvious answer is a cease fire, but Hama rejects that. THe Palestinians ought to be very angry at Hamas.

              • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

                The Palestinians have a right to self defense against genocide, apartheid, and occupation, and they have had this since 1948. All they have is makeshift, undirected, glorified fireworks to use to defend themselves against the 4th greatest military force in the world (due to US support of 10 million a day). If they stopped resisting, they would be wiped off the face of the earth by the Zionists, and this might happen anyway, due in large part to the complicity in genocide of Catholics on blogs like this who are supporting it. To portray Israel as the victim here is the most diabolical inversion of reality possible.

    • Watosh

      Well Thaddeus my only agenda is the truth. Sometimes I am wrong, in which case I am always grateful to those who can point me to the truth. I have been around a long, long time and just had my 84th birthday and am a widower now living near my older daughter. I have stumbled around, at one time, my west Virginia retirement phase when I had a cabin along with two marvelous Australian Cattle dogs, Maggie and Smokey, near Lost City, WV,, and listened to Rush Limbaugh religiously until George Bush became president and saw how Rush was giving him a pass. I am a roamin’ Catholic now, and have attended the Old Latin rite when it has been available, right now attend an Catholic Eastern rite, the Ukrainian Greek catholic church. I am now reading John Rao’s books, “Removing the Blindfold, and Black Legends.” I find my views are generally rejected by all the various factions, since I support neither political party for one thing, and have lost my faith in enlightenment generated secular democracy.

    • ponerology

      Actually sir, I think there are many precedents to this current, horrible slaughter of Palestinians. (I believe Ukrainians, Armenians, Vietnamese, Serbs, and possibly German WWII prisoners of war, to name only a few, might agree.) Unfortunately, in the current socio-political, and twisted theological) climate, only one group of self-chosen people is permitted the privilege to the claim of not only having ethnic cleansing perpetrated upon it but, in fact, is the only group which has acquired for itself the dubious privilege of having the ability to perpetrate and/or have it’s agents perpetrate ethnic cleansing upon ‘the other’, with very little fear of retribution.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        Right. It’s actually not my words, but Max Igan’s that I cut and pasted. Mine are in the last few sentences. I agree about the other massacres. Good point. What’s unprecedented, you must agree, is how out in the open it is, due to the technology of global media, and how Catholics are still defending it. It’s incomprehensibly evil. The bloggers on this site are an absolute scandal and disgrace.

  • GUNNER

    Islam is a cult of death and destruction what religion other than them send children with explosives strapped on them to kill innocent people. They also treat women like cattle and generally with total disrespect and you idiots want us to kow tow to these dim witted savages lots of luck with that BS.

  • Timothy

    If you want to see a firestorm, just repost obe of Prof Kilpatrick’s articles to your FB page. I habe received more negative, irrational, and emotive personal attacks from daring to raise the issue. Then try taking a position. And the vitriol comes from “good Catholics” who are wilfully blind to the real problems. Any critical analysis is deemed “stereotypes” and “hate speech” because of “deep insecurity” all intended to shut down discussion and thinkibg.

    I applaud Prof Kilpatrick’s courage and skill. Be assured of my prayers.

    • sparrowhawk58

      No kidding. On the anniversary of 9/11 one year, I posted a picture of the Towers and referred to the “attack by Muslim terrorists.” I was told this was “hateful.” Really? I guess it slipped my mind that all the little old Methodist ladies were also members of al-Qaida?

  • Alojzije

    Islam is strong, we are weak( christian`s) and that is iit. I mean, there are killing our brothers and sisters in Iraq and all we do is watch.

    Why do we just watch? Well, first we have no political power to help them(our goverments are not christian) and second we have become pacifist`s.So no political influence and cripling pacifism.

    But in the end all will be ok,so let`s not worry.

  • djr12

    One word that appears nowhere in this article but gives the lie to the theory that our governments placate Islam in a desire for stability: “Israel.” If you wanted a model in the Middle East for a stable, tolerant government, there it is. Instead, the governments and media of the west bend over backwards to criticize Israel while excusing and defending Muslim atrocities at every turn.

    In other words, Kilpatrick is overthinking the issue. Anyone who’s been to college in the last four decades knows why the Obamas of the world placate Muslims, and it has nothing to do with stability or belief in its positive effects. It simply has to do with the fact that, to us in the west, Muslims are “other,” and our ridiculous humanities/social science departments have only one idee fixe: the “other” — by definition disadvantaged and oppressed — is sacred. Woman is the “other” vis-à-vis man, and is therefore to be coddled. Unless, of course, there is an even more “other” other (Muslims), in which case all bets are off. Sorry, women, gays, other minority religious adherents — Muslims are the trump card of otherness. Can’t beat them.

    • DE-173

      “Anyone who’s been to college in the last four decades knows why the Obamas of the world placate Muslims, and it has nothing to do with stability or belief in its positive effects. It simply has to do with the fact that, to us in the west, Muslims are “other,” and our ridiculous humanities/social science departments have only one idee fixe: the “other” — by definition disadvantaged and oppressed — is sacred. ”

      The holy triad of the modern secular, collectivist, statist: Xenophilia, Neophilia and Roger Scruton’s “oikophobia”.

      Try to explain any of their innumerable myriad of social projects without finding the fingerprints of one of those disorderly obsessions.

  • thebigdog

    Afghan Girl, 10, Slated for Honor Killing After Being Raped:

    http://www.clarionproject.org/news/afghan-girl-10-slated-honor-killing-after-being-raped

  • ponerology

    Communism most certainly did NOT fail. The multitude of bureaucracies not only in the U.S. but the existence of the EU (an unelected and unaccountable ruling body) with the requisite multitude of ruling bureaucrats within it, is proof that Communism (or incremental socialist rot) is alive and doing extraordinarily well. [See numerous videos available on you tube of talks given by Yuri Bezmenov, ex-KGB, on 'how the west was won'.] “Western” leaders started to question Communist ideology during the 1980s because it was already so well-entrenched, there was no danger of its being overthrown in the West. The transformation was complete. By 1980, the thesis & antithesis had netted the synthesis desired by the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the Milner, Rhodes, & Macy groups; just as the Renaissance, Reformation, and Revolution(s) had achieved their goals.

    Now, according to this article, Mr. Kilpatrick’s work is supported by the Shillman Foundation. I could find no mission statement for this foundation nor have they any announced ‘programs’ in particular. According to non-profit-organizations.find the best.com, the Shillman Foundation was founded in the year 2000 by Robert Shillman and is involved in ‘philanthropy, volunteerism, and grant making’. In addition, the “Shillman Foundation reported $19.8 million in assets as of year-end (2012) making it one of the larger nonprofits. The reported income for the Shillman Foundation was $19.1 million, which makes it one of the highest income nonprofits.” Robert Shillman sits on the Executive Council of the Catholic Schools Foundation (2014-2015) which is a Boston Archdiocese foundation whose ‘signature program’ is the inner-city scholarship fund.

    Mr. Shillman is an admitted Lurianic Kabbalist–a system of concepts which believes a disturbance in the normal conjugal relations between the masculine and feminine aspect of the godhead resulted in a disruption of the flow of divine procreative energy throughout the cosmos and that God and the cosmos are in need of repair. “The act of liberating the divine light or energy and restoring it to the service of the infinite God is known in the Lurianic literature as Tikkun ha-Olam, or the restoration of the world. On a personal level, each individual is enjoined to liberate the sparks within his own soul in order that he may ultimately achieve his personal restoration and divine destiny.” (I refer you to S. Drob, “This is Gold”: Freud, Psychotherapy and the Lurianic Kabbalah
    http://www.newkabbalah.com ©Sanford L. Drob, 1998-2006.)

    Mr. Shillman claims to act upon the tikkun olam or the orthodox Judaic’s ‘responsibility’ to ‘perfect God’s world’, with the obvious idea that this world can somehow be perfected, given that God, in His obviously FINITE wisdom, left it imperfect and is waiting for Judaics to assist Him. According to Yehuda Mirsky in an article titled, “Tikkun Olam: Basic Questions and Policy Directions”, In the absence of a ‘strong welfare state’ the ‘rich tradition of the tzedakah (charitable giving) is a model of social communal responsibility’. One take-away here is, until a ‘strong welfare state’ exists, Lurianic Kabbalists must continue working to ensure its eventual existence which will restore the imperfect world to perfection. I suppose then we’ll have a Lurianic kabbalistic utopia in which those who are in communion with the utopia will have reached their ‘divine destiny’ and those who are not in communion will be deemed ‘haters’ or perhaps ‘deniers’ of the divine destiny.

    But Mr. Kilpatrick seriously wants us to come to the conclusion that Islam has a religious exemption from criticism? …He is correct about one thing…if we lose, there won’t be a rematch.
    Crisis? You betcha!

    • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

      Kilpatrick is a disgrace to Catholicism. His work is poisonous, inflaming unjust hatred of innocent Muslims and dividing Catholics against each other and brainwashing them in neocon ideology. The fact that he says nothing about the apartheid state of Israel or the millions of Iraqis murdered by the U.S. government in its unjust occupation to permit Israeli domination of the Middle East is a sign of his mendaciousness. Not one word against the present massacre of Gazans, and his followers on this blog are some of the most morally insane, hatred-filled, brainwashed people I have ever seen. The whole world is condemning this massacre, even many Israelis themselves, even the secular mainstream media, and these moral barbarians, “conservative Catholics” are defending it. It’s completely satanic.

      Thanks to Watosh and Ponerology for your great work here in this spiritually and intellectually and morally dark area of the internet.

      • slainte

        Whatever valid points you might have raised in defense of Muslim peoples are overshadowed by your extremist rhetoric and demonization of those who would question or refute your claims.

        • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

          Anything less than extreme rhetoric would be imprudent in a situation as dire as this one. Demonization? That’s obviously a mischaracterization of my words: “moral barbarians,” “morally insane,” “hate-filled,” “brainwashed”–none of that implies demonization. The Palestinians, however, and Muslims in general, have been demonized on this blog, and thus the former’s being mass murdered is now being justified by, it’s incredible to say, Catholics. You’re projecting, my friend. I am not the one demonizing anyone.

          • slainte

            No my friend…I am telling you that your approach does not work. It causes one to pull back and reject your arguments.
            .
            Your polarizing rhetoric as well as that of Evagrius offends and alienates your audience. The message gets lost in the fighting words.

            • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

              This is intellectual warfare, not polite conversation. When one’s interlocutors are defending mass murder and genocide, harsh words are prudent, even morally obligatory. Offending my audience is the point. Truth alienates the deluded and deceitful.

              • slainte

                If your audience tunes you out….then YOU have lost the battle. Your interlocutor has fared no better.

                • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

                  You seem to be sympathetic with the Gazan’s plight. Would you help me in this battle then? They need all the help they can get. I appreciate your constructive critique, and will consider it.

                  • slainte

                    I am sympathetic to Watosh, an 84 year old gentleman who managed to remain calm and civil despite getting caught up in the middle of a sparring match between you and your interlocutor.
                    .
                    You should do more than “consider” my critique when you choose to come on a Catholic website.

                    • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

                      Take a side on the issue.

                    • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

                      Now that I have considered your critique, I don’t accept it. This is not a polite conversation, nor should it be, but intellectual warfare. I am engaging in moral rebuke and sophistry unmasking, a.k.a., Jesus towards the Pharisees. The Zionist fascists led by Netanyahu, who consider Palestinians less than dogs and treat them as such, are akin to the ancient Pharisees who rejected Christ’s love of all. The Catholics who are defending such enemies of Logos are not worthy of polite discussion or even debate, but only moral condemnation. I am also here to deconstruct their sophistry for the sake of those good-willed but intellectually weak and naive readers who might be fooled by it.

                      Now, I’d like to hear your view on this topic, for you have entered the fray. Judging upon your excellent comments on the “Islamophilic” post, where you accurately suggested that the real enemy is dividing the good-willed of many religions against each other, you are on the side of the Gazans here.

  • douglas kraeger

    I agree. Great article. I believe one avenue of approach to this problem is to find the right questions (supported with verifiable evidence as a starting point), give them to Muslims, and suggest they seek God’s answer in the security of their homes and hearts. Two examples: 1. Muslims accept Genesis as the Word of God and most Muslims will admit there can be contradictions in an infinitely perfect God , so He cannot lie, whatever He says is truth. So God must fulfill all promises He makes. In Genesis 17: 20-21, God makes two promises. Question for Muslims to ask their spiritual leaders and to seek God’s answer also: Is there any verifiable evidence to show that God cannot fulfill the promise of Gen. 17:21 (covenant with Isaac who was not born yet) and then, when the children of Ishmael seek and find the promised Messiah, God then will fulfill His promise and make of them a truly great nation, a nation of holy people, loving all as God loves all? 2. God is infinitely good and powerful. No one can imagine a greater good than the infinite goodness of God. We can imagine a God so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful that this God is turning the whole world right side up by His peaceful means without violating anyone’s freewill. Question: Since people can imagine a God so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful, therefore God must be doing exactly that, and then all should ask proponents of terrorism to publicly explain how they are not opposing the Will of God by initiating violence against innocent people when God’s will is to peacefully turn the whole world right side up by peaceful means; or to explain how their God is not that infinitely good, merciful or powerful? Can you imagine proponents of terrorism publicly answering this question and saying in effect: “Do not listen to those who claim God is so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful that He is turning the whole world right side up by peaceful means. Do not listen to them. God is not that infinitely good. Listen to us. We can not wait for God’s peaceful means. We have to hate those the All-Loving God loves. To war.”
    Of coarse there are other questions (and these can be worded better), combined with verifiable information, (starting grounds) that can be presented to those who are honestly seeking God’s will. I just believe we can trust God to give them His answer, if we ask give them God’s question that we can see better because we already have His answer.

    • ponerology

      If I comprehend your remark, you believe Muslims are the only ‘proponents’ of terrorism? To what category do you assign rabbinic talmudism – wherein rabbi after rabbi decides what is ‘god’s’ will and adds it to their holiest book? The pretense that Judaics follow the Old Testament is only a pretense. They are not ‘elder brothers’. They adhere to the Talmud.

      • douglas kraeger

        No, they are not the only terrorist groups. I believe all leaders of all terrorist groups should be asked to publicly address and answer directly the questions I put forward. I agree there are other questions that may need to be asked also, but again I say, Can you imagine proponents of terrorism publicly answering this question and saying in effect: “Do not listen to those who claim God is so infinitely good, merciful, and powerful that He is turning the whole world right side up by peaceful means. Do not listen to them. God is not that infinitely good. Listen to us. We can not wait for God’s peaceful means. We have to hate those the All-Loving God loves. To war.” And as an after thought: my preceding quote does show I was referring to any terrorist proponent. I do agree I could have been more explicit, thank you. Do you see the possibility that if proponents of terrorism were asked to publicly answer these question, they might have a hard time defending their means because they would be saying God is not capable of doing this by peaceful means because He is not all-powerful and they would thereby lose some would-be followers who really believe God is the Creator of all space and time and infinitely powerful enough to turn the whole world right side up by his peaceful means, and He is so good that He wills to let us cooperate with Him in this work.

        • ponerology

          Your questions assume that there are people in control and who wield real power who’d permit such questions to be asked. Your questions also assume the answers would be in accord with Christ Jesus. Remember, Jesus said to his followers they should be mindful that the world has hated Him and that Christians would therefore be hated as well. God can bring any chastisement He wishes upon the world for its transgressions. History indicates many humans do not learn from history and care only for worldly things. I don’t disagree with your premise. I simply am pointing out that we need to understand the enemy of Christ and the tactics used. The enemy of Christ doesn’t introduce himself as the enemy of Christ prior to attacking.

          • douglas kraeger

            I agree we must ask how the enemy would work to oppose any good enterprise. People in positions of power or influence can be great conduits for God’s work, or they can be used by the enemy to try and delay God’s victory. God is victorious and has won the definitive victory, all that is left is for Him to reveal the work each of us can choose to do to help “hasten” the revealing of His complete victory where and when everything is reconciled to Him, even those in hell for ever and ever and ever and ever. The lay people therefore have the awesome responsibility to do all that God gives them the opportunity to do to encourage the leaders to do all they can do. How many priests have watered down their sermons because the laity did not encourage and support him to do more teaching from the pulpit?
            Along the lines of my suggestion for questions to be given to leaders of terrorist groups by people they know and want to recruit, our responsibility is to do all we can to make the questions as superb as possible and to offer them to other lay persons who will be encouraged by their spiritual leaders to seek the best questions possible to try and dissuade proponents of terror they may encounter from their path. Some religious leaders may need private encouragement or possibly public questioning to “help” them publicly encourage (from their pulpits) all in their sway to do all they can to help all realize that God is so infinitely powerful that He can turn the whole world right side up, to the One Faith He wants all to have, by His peaceful means and that proponents of terror cannot be doing God’s will.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Asia, the Caucasus, Latin and South America, Canada, USA and Europe are also experiencing the spread of the aggressive destructive malignancy called Islam.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    You are very correct in what you say, but Islam, besides being a political ideology and a religion, is also a whole social system. The skewed religious aspects of it are also causing great problems as it is very primitive, a kind of a shame culture somewhat like what we find in Homer. Danish Nicolai Sennels has written a very persepctiv study called Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experience from the Copenhagen Municipality. He has spent several years as a psychologist in a Danish prison. He notes that muslims are less than 3% of the Danish population, yet muslim youths are 76% of the prison population. The way they are raised, the hared which is instilled in them,the victimism which characterizes them, having rather the psychology of the child who tends to blame someone else for his ill deeds etc. indicate some of the problems that this religion causes. On the side of Islam, the religious side of it seems to have been cooked up to sustain an already fledging arab empire in the early 8th century. The historical basis of the Islamic narrative is very flimsly indeed, not to say inexistent. They basically lash out like a bully child.
    On the side of the West, the problem is the left which controls the governments, media and academia. The right is afraid to challenge the hegemony of the left and its multiculturalism and political correctness. If the preaching of jihad is taking place in many if not most of the mosques, then they are a legitimate target for investigation and for being closed down on the basis of the laws in place.
    The truth is that the peaceful muslim is in reality a bad muslim, as the classical islamic texts order the muslim to fight the infidel, to do exactly what the Islamic State is doing in Iraq. It is not surprising that Nazism has many affinities with Islam and that Hitler had contact with the Grand Mufti of Egypt. Likewise, the left also has many affinities with it, among them the hatred of Christianity and Western Civilization which stems from it.
    It is not impossible to explain to the population what the Islamic texts say and the fact that the jihadists base everything they are doing on them. Of course, the Islamic supremacists and apologists have the ears of the media. Jihad also includes deceiving “kafus” and Mahommed states that “war is deceit”.
    It is a primitive and dangerous, even sacage ideology which must be faced up to if we are all not to be made subject to their sharia law.
    Another problem is that Pope Francis seems to have no clue what the real nature of Islam is. Otherwise he wouldn’t have witten what he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium 252. Allah is like a master of slaves, totally arbitrary and he predestines those he wants to hell etc. What the Qur´an says about Jesus is totally twisted. There is no golden rule, no such thing as charity and love for other human beings.
    The religion itself is part of the problem. What can be done with a religion whose sacred book declares that the Jews are “the vilest of creatures”. There seems to be almost no possibility that they can apply historical and texual criticism to it, as it is very likely that the whole religon would fall to pieces, being a ministerpetation of part of the Bible and some heteredox Christian texts of the 7th century. There are a few muslims who are interested in reforming the religion, but they are a voice in the desert and may well get their heads chopped off. If the religion does fall to pieces, or at least in part, there may be a very important field for evangelization.

  • Evagrius

    “The truth of the matter is that Islam is a hybrid: it’s both a political ideology and a religion.” Not quite. The distinction between religion and political ideology is relatively recent, Western, and Christian. It is not a distinction that is universally shared or even recognized across cultures or time.

    Although the distinction between religion and political ideology sounds self-evident to our modern Western ears, for the greater part of human history it is an anachronism to make any distinction between “politics” and “religion.” This is generally true of the 9th (not 7th) century in which Islam arose, and is especially true of Islam. Islam, as it exits today, is the end result of the Abbasids efforts to construct a politico-religious identity for their empire that was distinct from both the Nicene/Orthodox Christianity of the (East) Roman (Byzantine) Empire, their primary geo-political rival, and the pre-Nicene Syrian Christianity of the Umayyads, their predecessors and internal opponents. The Abbasids intentionally ‘politicized’ the pre-Nicene Syrian Christian religion of the Arab Christians to create an imperial ideology/mythology. Along the way, they created the historicized foundation myths (including “Muhammad”) that continue to be uncritically accepted as the 7th century ‘origin’ of Islam. The naive efforts of Westerners to distill a ‘political’ “Islamism” from a a ‘religious’ “Islam” are little more than the artificial projection of Western distinctions onto an Islamic body of thought that recognizes no such distinctions.

    Finally, both National Socialism and Communism, much like their close cousins Democracy and Secular Humanism are religions, not merely political ideologies (See Eric Voegelin’s works), that have much in common with Gnosticism in their attempts to immanentize the eschaton. It was Christopher Dawson, who many years ago so astutely observed that for secularists, “democracy is not a form of government, it is a spiritual
    community, based on the ‘participation of every human being in the formation of
    social values.’” (The Crisis of Western Education (1961)). So yes, our current troubles are merely the continuation of the old wars of religion, through other means, and under other guises.

  • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

    All this talk about the evils of Islam when right now, as we speak, hundreds of children are being deliberately murdered by the agents of Zionism.

    • Evagrius

      All this talk about “hundreds of children … murdered.” If your concern for children were actually stronger than your hatred of Jews, then wouldn’t your priority actually be the over 3,000 unborn children deliberately murdered every day through abortion, over 53,000,000 in American alone since 1973. Or should we conclude that its actually only the deaths of children in Gaza that are politically useful for you in your social media campaign for your paymasters at HAMAS.

      • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

        So, condemning the wanton slaughter of Palestinian children in Gaza means 1) one doesn’t care about the murder of unborn children; 2) one hates Jews. Got it.

  • hello

    The Larry Silverstein Award for Chutzpah Above and Beyond the Call of Duty has been awarded (unfortunately not posthumously) to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his recent statements blaming the “telegenic” victims of Israeli genocide.

    Under the headline “Netanyahu says Hamas using rising death toll to make Israel look bad,” the London (UK) Independent quoted Netanyahu as saying:

    “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.”

    It seems the murderer is trying to blame his murders on the victims – and on those resisting his bloody crimes. Now THAT’S chutzpah.

    The textbook definition is:

    Chutzpah: the quality of a man who, having killed his mother and father, asks the judge for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.

    So what do you call a man who murders a thousand people and blames his victims for garnering sympathy?

    I think it’s time to re-write that textbook definition.

    According to Wikipedia chutzpah has been defined as “‘gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible ‘guts’, presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to…’ Chutzpah amounts to a total denial of personal responsibility, that renders others speechless and incredulous … one cannot quite believe that another person totally lacks common human traits like remorse, regret, guilt, sympathy and insight. The implication is at least some degree of psychopathy in the subject, as well as the awestruck amazement of the observer at the display.”

    Maybe “no other language can do it justice” because no other ethno-linguistic group has quite as many brazenly psychopathic Netanyahu types infesting it?

    The Silverstein Chutzpah Award Committee announced yesterday:

    The Larry Silverstein Chutzpah Trophy

    “By setting up the false-flag murder of three Israeli teenagers, slaughtering the civilians of Gaza, and then trying to blame his murders on the victims, who (he tells us) are committing suicide with Israeli bombs, shells, white phosphorous, and DIME munitions in order to garner sympathy, Netanyahu has taken chutzpah to a whole new level. He is richly deserving of the Silverstein Award.”

    The Committee added that Netanyahu’s use of the word “telegenic” to describe the beheaded babies, dismembered children, white phosphorous recipients, and other Israeli atrocity victims deserves a chutzpah award all by itself.

    The Committee announced that the Silverstein Award – a miniature replica of WTC-7 embossed with the words “pull it” – would be attached to a Hamas rocket and fired in Netanyahu’s general direction.

    The Chuzpah Award is named for Larry Silverstein, the Zionist billionaire and close friend of Netanyahu who bought the condemned-for-asbestosWorld Trade Center two months before 9/11, doubled the terror insurance, then after 9/11 asked for and collected double indemnity for the “two separate and unrelated terrorist attacks: the two planes.” This after he had confessed on national television to demolishing WTC-7, one of the buildings he was collecting on. Years later, he was back in court asking for $13 billion more.

    Previous recipients of the Silverstein Award include Israel lobbyist Patrick Clawson, who made a speech calling for the murder of Americans in a false-flag attack designed to launch a war on Iran; and Andrew Adler, Editor of the Jewish Times, who called on Israel to murder President Obama for refusing to attack Iran.

  • Ronk

    Great article, only you forgot to add that, at the same time, Christianity gets NO exemption from criticism on the grounds of being a religion (as it surely is), but is routinely and continually mocked, pilloried, insulted and slandered every day by thousands with total impunity.

  • Truth

    What is wrong with Israelis?

    Every time Israel embarks on a new round of wholesale slaughter in Gaza, polls show that more than 90% of Israelis support the butchery.

    For Israelis, mass-murdering children is a spectator sport. When the IDF starts dropping cluster bombs, white phosphorous, DIME munitions and other horrendous weapons on Gaza, crowds of Israelis pack the hilltops to barbecue meat, drink alcohol and cheer as they watch Palestinian children being blown to bits.

    Every day in Israel’s major cities, mobs of Israelis gather to hunt down and brutalize Arab children and teenagers. Police stand by as they beat their victims into unconsciousness. According to Israeli blogger Elizabeth Tsurkov, the mobs’ favorite chant is: “Tomorrow there’s no school in Gaza, they don’t have any children left.”

    Israelis proudly tweet their desire to murder children: “Kill Arab children so there won’t be a next generation,” “Stinking Arabs may you die, amen,” and “Arabs may you be paralyzed and die with great suffering” are some representative tweets exposed by Israeli journalist David Sheen.

    Israeli parliamentarian Ayelet Shaked has announced that she wants to kill not only Palestinian children, whom she calls “little snakes,” but also the Palestinian mothers who raise them. Recently Shaked openly called for the genocidal murder of every Palestinian. Instead of being sent to the Hague, prosecuted, ejected from government, or even rebuked, she was lionized by Israeli society.

    Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel “Butcher of Sabra and Shatila” Sharon, agrees with Shaked. In an op-ed published in the Jerusalem Post, Sharon advocated using nuclear weapons to exterminate the Palestinians. He wrote that Israel needs to “flatten all of Gaza,” adding that “The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.”

    While they enjoy slaughtering children and their mothers, Israelis take special relish in killing pregnant women. A T-shirt popular in the Israeli army shows a pregnant woman with a target on her belly. The legend reads: “One shot two kills.”

    Killing children is the de facto official policy of the Israeli military. In his article “Gaza Diary,” Chris Hedges wrote about watching Israeli soldiers hunt Palestinian children for sport:

    “Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

    An October 2004 study by British Medical Journal confirmed that this is a common practice, and never punished: “Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest – the sniper’s wound…Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat.”

    During its onslaught on Gaza, Israel has been systematically slaughtering children in schools, emergency shelters, and even as they play soccer on the beach. Under the headline “Israel’s offensive in Gaza has ‘killed more children than fighters,’” The London, UK Telegraph reported that Israel is “waging war on children.”

    Again I ask: What is wrong with Israelis? What has produced this nation of demonic child-killing monsters?

    In his book Goliath, Max Blumenthal – a young Jewish American from an influential family – lays bare Israel’s genocidal mentality. Blumenthal discusses the wildly popular Israeli best-seller Torat Ha’Melech, which advocates the wholesale murder of non-Jews.

    Torat Ha’Melech is not a marginalized radical screed; on the contrary, it is an authoritative guide for Israel soldiers. Its authors are two of Israel’s leading rabbis, Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur.

    Blumenthal explains:

    “Drawing from a hodgepodge of rabbinical texts that seemed to support their genocidal views, Shapira and Elitzur urged a policy of ruthlessness toward non-Jews, insisting that the commandment against murder ‘refers only to a Jew who kills a Jew, and not to a Jew who kills a gentile, even if that gentile is one of the righteous among nations. ‘The rabbis went on to pronounce all civilians of the enemy population ‘rodef,’ or villains who chase Jews and are therefore fair game for slaughtering.”

    The Israeli child-killer personality has much in common with the psychiatric term sociopath: “A person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke like a sociopath when he said that the Palestinian resistance “uses telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause.” The expression “telegenically dead” is a stunningly insensitive euphemism for the corpses of little children with their body parts blown off; and of course it was Netanyahu himself who killed them, and then tried to blame the victims for his actions.

    What can be done about the sociopathic Israel?

    One of America’s leading experts on sociopaths is Dr. Robert Hare, who works with the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center. Since Israel is the biggest child abductor and child serial killer on the planet, perhaps we could send the whole Zionist entity to Dr. Hare for treatment.

    Unfortunately, as Dr. Hare admits, sociopaths are usually impossible to cure. The best we can do is detect them, using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, and then protect ourselves from them.

    A sociopathic individual can be arrested and imprisoned. A sociopathic nation poses a much bigger problem. So how can we protect Palestinian children from the Israeli serial murderers?

    The international community needs to completely ostracize Israel, indict its leaders for war crimes, and use the combined diplomatic and military force of the world’s nations to peacefully dismantle the genocidal Zionist entity. But that cannot happen until the Zionists’ death-grip on the West’s media, finance and politics is broken once and for all.

    In the mean time, all individuals of good will must help the Palestinians defend themselves. As Italy’s leading philosopher Gianni Vattimo recently said, Europeans and other decent people around the world “should raise money to buy Hamas better rockets.” Vattimo also urged Europeans to form international brigades to fight along with Hamas, in the same way that foreign volunteers fought Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

    If there are any decent, non-sociopathic Israelis left, they too should join those brigades, just as novelist Breyten Breytenbach and other white South Africans of conscience joined the armed resistance to apartheid. Where are the Israeli equivalents of Breytenbach? There must be at least one or two human beings left in Israel; we will learn who they are when they die in martyrdom operations against their sociopathic child-killing compatriots.

    • Evagrius

      @hamas troll

  • Love

    Shifting the Paradigm on Israel
    by AJAMU BARAKA
    “… To be committed to justice we must believe that ethics matter, that it is vital to have a system of shared morality.”

    – bell hooks

    “Out of nowhere many soldiers jumped out and ambushed Samir. They shot him first in the leg, yet he managed to run away towards the village. But how far can an injured child run? Twenty, maybe 30, meters? They could have easily arrested him, especially when he was injured, but instead they shot him in the back with live ammunition… To me this is premeditated murder.”[i]

    Palestinian life is cheap – something Samir already understood from his short 16 years of living under occupation. For the friends and family of Samir and the thousands of other Samirs murdered by the Israeli military and settlers over the last four decades, Palestinian life will still be cheap when the shooting stops, the Israeli military withdraws its ground forces from Gaza, and daily life under occupation returns to the norm of low-intensity systematic state terror.

    The killings, breaking of bones, firing of tear gas canisters into enclosed spaces, and the daily humiliation of checkpoints, separate roads and separating walls will continue and will continue to be daily reminders to Palestinians that they are different; lesser; expendable.

    From these experiences, Palestinians understand – like many of us on the receiving end of the Western world’s “civilizing mission” – that the West’s claim to moral superiority by championing universal human rights and the rule of law is a grotesque lie.

    Over the years, Palestinians have seen how they can be murdered in the hundreds and thousands with impunity and in the full glare of the mass media. And while most of the non-Western world is stunned by the indiscriminate viciousness of the Israeli attack, headlines in Western media outlets proclaim “Hamas lays siege on Israel” and “Hamas terrorizes Israel”—as though the over one thousand lives of murdered Palestinians are completely irrelevant and devoid of value.

    The devaluing of Palestinian life is in stark contrast to the concern for the dignity of the remains of the victims of Malaysia Airlines flight M17, recently shot down over Ukraine. It is also reflected in the arguments of the Israeli propagandists, who imply that Western news media should stop covering the deaths of Palestinian civilians because it satisfies the strategic objective of the “Hamas terrorists.”

    The scenes of carnage – Palestinian bodies littering the streets of Shujaiya; whole families packed into cars, desperately trying to flee the onslaught of Israeli rockets and naval bombardments; and a vicious scorched-earth ground operation in which whole communities are free-fire zones for Israelis, have still not been enough to generate much empathy for the lives of Palestinians for many in the U.S. A recent Gallop poll of opinion in the U.S. suggests that 71% of the respondents who claim to follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict closely say that Israeli actions in Gaza are justified. [ii]

    And in Western capitals, the defenders of “universal” human rights proudly proclaim their unwavering support for Israel’s right of “defense” against a captured and largely defenseless people who are supposed to have special protections under international law.

    The moral positions taken by many people in the West, especially in the U.S., confirms the existence of an ethical double-standard – one in which the actions of the Israeli state are framed as legitimate, reasonable and deserving of support, and one in which all acts of resistance on the part of the captured and oppressed Palestinians are seen as criminal, immoral and terroristic. [iii]

    The ethical double-standards for non-Europeans versus Europeans – or those who are associated with white power and European civilization, like the Israeli state – are grounded in a generalized acceptance of the civilizational superiority of the West and the division of humanity between those “like us” and “others” who have different standards of human behavior.

    This division has always been a fundamental component of white supremacist thought that justified the conquest, pillage and exploitation of most of the non-Western world. The violence of slavery, genocide of Native Americans and colonialism found its defenders among liberals and within the contradictory framework of Eurocentric, male-centered liberalism that divided humanity between those eligible for the full enjoyment of human rights – European male, capitalist property owners and eventually most people categorized as “white” irrespective of class and gender – and everyone else.

    The “white man’s burden” “manifest destiny,” the “doctrine of discovery,” “American exceptionalism” – and their 21st century expression in humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect – these are all expressions of the arrogant pathology of the white supremacist worldview.

    It is this sublimated framework that Israeli propagandists skillfully appeal to, in order to generate the continued moral and political support for their policies with large segments of the populations of Europe and especially within the white supremacist settler-state of the U.S.

    Constructed as an uncivilized, barbarous, terrorist organization, Hamas has been effectively de-humanized – along with all of the Palestinian people of Gaza, since they voted for Hamas in the elections of 2006. In contrast, Israel is juxtaposed as innocent, civilized and humane.

    Projecting itself as a superior civilization, Israel attempts to immunize itself from human rights charges, since as a “civilized” (read “Western”), humane and rational society, Israel by definition cannot be accused of engaging in massive human rights violations?

    Instead it is the actions of the Palestinian resistance fighters that are highlighted, because that resistance provides a convenient weapon in the narrative created by Israel of Palestinian “otherness” where their legitimate resistance is instead twisted into being further evidence of their sub-human status.

    According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natahuyu, the value of human life is different for Palestinians and their leadership who want more dead Palestinians so that they can use “telegenically dead Palestinians”[iv] for their cause. The logical corollary to this position is that it is perfectly understandable and justifiable that Israel is forced to kill hundreds of “them” in order to ensure Israeli security from these “barbarous” people who have a natural propensity towards violence, if they are not contained and periodically terrorized into submission.

    For activists in solidarity with Palestinian desires for national self-determination, undermining the hegemony of the “innocent settler” narrative is imperative in order to counter the propaganda that justifies Israeli state and settler violence. To do so means centering colonialism and white supremacy as the grounding analytical categories and conceptual framework.

    This is not necessarily a new argument or one that has not been embraced by some, but for various reasons, including bogus charges of anti-Semitism, many in the U.S. progressive and radical communities have eschewed this approach over the years.

    The other challenge is that the “white supremacist” term has been domesticated and reduced to a crude and relatively simple notion of “racism.” In this context, white supremacists and white supremacy is represented by easy targets like Donald Sterling and Tea Party members, while racialized imperialism is overlooked.

    In order to re-position Israel in the public imagination, activists must overcome both of these issues if movements for solidarity and justice such as the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement have any chance of being effective solidarity mechanisms.

    Liberated from the racist bias of the colonial/imperialist lens that casts Israelis as victims, Israeli state actions and policies in Gaza are then stripped of the obfuscating claims of self-defense and concerns for Palestinian civilians. And ending ethical double standards by applying one standard informed by the principles of human equality and the rejection of all forms of dehumanizing oppression would clearly identify the real victims in the ongoing drama of the Israel/Palestinian conflict – and it would not be the state of Israel.

    • Evagrius

      @troll

MENU