The New York Times magazine section this Sunday has a story about the difficulties that confronted a Bavarian village in Germany that was invaded by large numbers of Muslim immigrants and how it was dealing with its Islamophobia. Being that this was the Times, I prejudged the direction that this article would be taking me -- small-mind Germans disrespecting an upright Muslim family trying to escape the horrors of civil war and, as a result of an enlightenment, opening up their hard Teutonic hearts -- and didn't finish reading it. (Go peruse it yourself and see if my prejudice is mistaken ... see: The New Europeans.)
But it did get me to thinking about this supposed curse of the small-minded people like myself. How should I approach this "mania" that is sweeping the secular world ... that an alarmingly large number of Muslims, enabled by the billions of oil money that has dropped into their laps and by the leader of the free world's forbearance, have resurrected their ancient hope for an Islamic caliphate that would convert the rest of the world to this "religion of peace" and so force us to embrace all of its covenants.
Like many politicians on other sticky problems, I have been "evolving my attitude on this issue" to where now I believe that the solution to this mania lies totally within the Muslim communities ... and, if after a reasonable time period, they have not solved it, then it needs to be dealt with somewhat sharply by the rest of us.
And how should these Muslim communities deal with this problem? Let me count the ways:
- The Imams of all the mosques around the world need to publicly disavow this notion of a world-wide caliphate forced upon the rest of us. Those unwilling to take such a step should be defrocked by the Muslim higher authorities.
- Muslim communities should shoulder the responsibility of identifying and reporting on the radical elements that are festering within. If this means that they suffer retaliation from these terrorists, then this is the price they should be willing to pay.
- The Muslim religion itself needs a reformation movement wherein the more violent and antisocial elements of the Quran are deemphasized or recast in the context of the times in which they were written ... indicating that they have been misinterpreted in today's world.
- Muslims should take concerted efforts to integrate themselves into their communities. This means no "no go" Muslim enclaves, no Sharia law overriding local ordinances, no insistence on severe Islamic garb that hides identities, no attacks of the mores of the communities in which they reside, and pledging allegiance to their current countries.
- Countries that are Muslim theocracies should allow secular instincts to take hold without undemocratic suppression. Places like Iran that put down such populist instincts should not be kowtowed to ... like they have been in recent times by our current poobahs.
These conditions seem quite unlikely to happen.... even with a reasonable subset of same. (I'd settle for any three.) So, I guess our (and their) lives are going to get much more difficult.
Afterward: See also: English Regrets.
8 comments:
You always stop short of saying what "dealing with them somewhat harshly" and their lives "getting much more difficult" means. There are over a billion Muslim adherents and a growing population. Do you have a final solution?
Who am I? Josef Mengele? There are plenty of punishments to pick from ... deportations, fines, removal of welfare benefits, denial of citizenship, travel conscriptions, incarceration, and, in capital cases, that Obummer favorite ... drone strikes.
Your points refer to dealing with them within the US except drone strikes which AFAIK are not domestic. Staying domestic reduces the scope of the surveillance to 3 million or so people.
It gets tricky where: The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
What would an originalist like Scalia say?
If Obummer can kill an American citizen in Yemen, he should be able to kill them in Kansas ...
As another for instance, I think a number of the Muslim residents in Molenbeek in Brussels could be and should be prosecuted as accessories after the fact. That's being tough.
Sources for your allegations please. Should the US accept only Christians because we are a Christian nation? How do you prove you are a Christian? Here, eat some bacon and a pork chop!
We know everything about these Syrian immigrants ... they are each vetted for two years don't you know ... and yes the percentage is a tiny bit off. I'm a liar for 2.5 p.p.s.
Post a Comment