Nature Abhors a Vacuum: Islam is Filling It

For those who realize Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, have you wondered why, aside from their rapid population growth?

The United States and western Europe are prime examples of the decline in faithfulness toward Christianity.  Christian fervor is receding.  Islamic fervor is flourishing.

We don't feel our values, our religion (if any), our culture and form of government are worth defending.  The fact is, the decline of a dynamic Christian faith in this nation and much of the west has left a vacuum.  Nature abhors it – Islam is filling it.

We have become so critical of ourselves, who we are, where we came from, how we got here, that anything else - anything else – is seen as better.

The Obama administration is a prime example of this self-loathing and self-flagellation in action – his apology tours, and all his leftist cohorts who are ashamed of our history and our culture – just like his wife.

As many of the comments in the above link reveal, the decline of Christian faith in the west is being met with shouts of “good riddance. Now we won’t be encumbered by superstition and constrained by “Biblical morality.” 

That is why we were willing to embrace "hope and change" without even caring where the "change" would lead us to.  We are so desperate for something different that, when facing the challenge of a completely foreign and contrary ideology, our attitude might as well be - "Whatever."  We care that much.

It will be very interesting and tragic over the next couple of decades as we observe the Islamic ideology sweep in and fill the vacuum.  The advocates of amorality won’t know what hit them.  Don't it always seem to go; that you don't know what you've got till it's gone?

LiveJournal Tags: decline of Christianity,nature abhors a vacuum,Islam,Biblical morality,apostacy

Terror & Intimidation - Parallels with the “Stockholm Syndrome"

The Stockholm Syndrome: This can explain a lot of odd and counterproductive behavior created by the terror and intimidation of Islam in many parts of the world. From afar we might wonder why people don't respond more forcibly to the aggression of Islamic terrorism. We often wonder about Israel's reaction. Of all countries, we would expect Israel to react with firm and incessant resolve whenever they are threatened or attacked by the Islamic world around them. After all, six million Jews were slaughtered only 60 years ago. Several neighboring nations vow to wipe Israel off the map. Many of Israel's leaders are aware of Islam's hatred of Jews and their vow to eradicate them. Yet Israel is plagued by many of her leaders who are conciliatory, appeasing liberals, rather than the firm and resolute conservatives we would intuitively expect given the facts. Can the Stockholm Syndrome be an explanation for this?

Israel is surrounded in a manner suggestive of "captors". Israel is "Patty Hurst." The surrounding Islamic nations are "The Symbianese Liberation Army," analogically speaking. Being in the position they are in, Israel, viscerally, feels helpless and beholden. They truly are of split mind, on one hand feeling a desperate need to defend themselves, but on the other hand grateful for every reprieve from warfare or perception of annihilation they can get. So grateful that many grasp at irrational straws of conciliation and illusions of peace from illusionary treaties. The captives grow more beholden as the captive become more emboldened. The book, “The Oslo Syndrome” written in 2005 documents this very relationship.

The same principles of human behavior are at work in Western European countries whose populations near Islamic majorities. As the Muslim numbers increase, so does Muslim intolerance and intimidation. With both their dwindling percentages and the Muslim intimidation, the "natives" in those western nations reach a point where rather than face the perceived inevitable end to their culture, they reach out in a desperate, perverted "friendship" with those who are quickly overtaking their centuries old culture, religion, and political system. This, too, is where the Stockholm Syndrome is playing out.

Even in the United States, it would be no surprise to learn that some of our leaders who "buddy up" and defend Islamic leaders are doing so out of fear of what they see as "the inevitable." They see the coming Islamic wave being so over powering and so certain that they feel it is better to befriend than declare hostilities. They feel it is better or easier to compromise their own values and culture to accommodate a diametrically opposed ideology than it is to challenge it. So they accommodate it.

So while some of our accommodation of the hostile supremacist Islamic ideology is due to our ignorance of its nature, some is also due to fear. The Stockholm Syndrome provides an easier way out rather than facing up to the challenge.

The other component of our failure to face the Islamic challenge, one that is not even on the radar for many of us, is this: We don't feel our values, our religion (if any), our culture and form of government are worth defending. The fact is, the decline of a dynamic Christian faith in this nation and much of the west has left a vacuum. Nature abhors it – Islam is filling it.

We have become so critical of ourselves, who we are, where we came from, how we got here, that anything else - anything else - appears that it might be better.

That is why we were willing to embrace "hope and change" without even caring what the "change" would lead us to. We are so desperate for something different that our attitude when facing the challenge of a completely foreign and contrary ideology might as well be - "Whatever." We care that much.

LiveJournal Tags: Stockholm syndrome,terror,terrorism,threats and intimidation,Israel,Islam and intimidation

A “Politically Correct” Thanksgiving…

A “politically correct” Thanksgiving would be a depressing experience.  I can imagine a gaggle of left leaning, America-hating socialist-progressives gathered around the Thanksgiving dinner table with a cold tofu turkey in their midst (to save energy and pacify PITA).

What can you imagine they would be expressing thanks about?  Certainly not for the foreign invaders from Europe who displaced indigenous native Americans to practice and spread their superstitious religion – the misguided “Pilgrims.”

It couldn’t possibly be for the hard work and dedication of our great grandparents as they destroyed the environment building factories, railroads, and highways to bring consumptive greed to their fellow invaders.

And I doubt it would be for the sacrifice of millions of our soldiers who over the decades fought and killed innocents around the world for what?  To further US imperialist interests to satisfy the money and power lust of big business?

And above all, I can’t imagine they would give thanks for our culture of liberty, tolerance, and personal initiative because actually, all cultures are the same – there are none better than any other.  All cultures and ideologies are worthy of respect and must be embraced.

I can imagine who the folks are that are gathered around this table:

• President and Ms. Obama
• Nancy Pelosi, John Dean, Al Gore, John Edwards and dozens from Congress
• Many  in our media, especially the likes of Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, Bill Moyers, Chris Matthews, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Arianna Huffington and all their cohorts
• Leaders of the Council on Arabic and Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic apologists who really hate most things about our culture except the freedom to spread their intolerant, fascist ideology.

Happy Thanksgiving, all you ungrateful b---tards.

LiveJournal Tags: leftist,America-hating,socialists,progressives,Thanksgiving,politically correct Thanksgiving

"Amorality" is the new "Moral"

After thinking some more about my previous blog posting, I am reminded that there is no such thing as "amorality." Everyone has moral standards of one of sort or another. My attorney friend merely had a different and somewhat vague set of moral standards, but she still had them.

Hitler had his set of standards, as do radical Muslims and child molesters.

So, it is not a matter of morality or no morality, but "whose" morality. Which version of morality fulfills our needs the best? The "our needs" definition is part of the problem. Is morality to serve our own individual "selfish" needs? Our family's needs? Our community's needs? Our nation's needs? Or the world's needs. Obama's morality seems to be focused on fulfilling the world's needs. The child molester's morality is based on fulfilling his own needs. Biblical morality is based on fulfilling a definition of God's desires as understood through the prophets. Increasing numbers of us today seem to consider this standard a fiction.

The truth is, the Biblical standard of morality really does promote interpersonal and intergroup harmony, personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance - qualities that are lacking in the major competing ideologies of Islamicism and Communism.

Ironically, we have to be discerning (informed version of "judgemental") and resolute (civil version of intolerant) in order to maintain our collective moral values.

Who's morality shall we choose? Is our version worth fighthing for, or shall we let the new "morality" become the the standard by default?

“Linear thinking” used as a slur…

Early in my career, a lawyer and I were driving to a hearing together and had time for some idle chatter.  Not far into the conversation I had the distinct impression I was on the psychoanalyst’s couch.  Critical of my Christian beliefs, she diagnosed me as being a “linear thinker.”  Of course I had no idea what that phrase meant at the time.  She proceeded to evaluate my mental processes as being excessively “black and white.”  In any event, the context of the conversation revealed that she determined my mode of thinking to be defective – a handicap.

It wasn’t until I looked up the term 30 years later that I realized the term “linear thinking” she used was not the term she intended.

Linear thinking is…

a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.

That sounds like a definition of “analysis.”  Ahaa.  She was telling me I was “anal” before the word “anal” came into common usage. 

Seriously, if I knew the definition at that time, I would have taken it as a complement.  But a complement, it was not.  What she meant was that my thinking did not allow for a million shades of gray as any “normally and productively functioning person should think.” 

What I learned during that conversation was she hated religion and the concepts of faith and moral absolutes.  Isn’t that just like an attorney.  To her there were no moral absolutes.  She didn’t grasp the concept of embracing clear principles and values that enable discernment.  She likely considered such “discernment” to be “judgmental”, which of course one should never be.  Wink wink.  She questioned what my “principles” and “values” were based on.  Of course, being naive and not a good debater, I responded “the Bible”.   The trap was sprung.  At which point she chuckled and proceeded to give me a litany of Old Testament scripture – a standard misdirect anyone who loathes Christianity or Judaism will do.  She rattled off several misquoted, out of context, and misinterpreted sections of the Old Testament that discuss mass slaughter.  “Is this what shapes your values?” she quizzed.  Our 10 mile trip was a thousand miles short of a defense on my part.

One interesting twist is that an alternative to “lineal thinking” is “conceptual thinking.”  I would guess, reviewing my blogs over the past four years, I am both.

Unfortunately, the great majority in Congress are attorneys, that breed of human stricken with the same deficiency in “principles” and “values” as my attorney “friend.”  They have little sense of right and wrong, and insist on a million shades of gray to the point where right and wrong do not exist.  That is a definition of “amoral.”  Is it any wonder they are taking us down a dark path and don’t care about the future?

LiveJournal Tags: amorality,right and wrong,Congress,attorneys,linear thinking

“Deleveraging”? Does it mean giving up our lifestyle?

Adapted from Investor Glossary.com, “deleveraging” is:

The pay down of debt, whether public or private. Individuals, companies or nations use leveraging (i.e. borrowing) to accelerate their consumption, growth or return.

But when an entity is concerned about defaulting on its obligations, about to be forced into bankruptcy, or concerned about rampant losses, it can use deleveraging to lower its risk of default and mitigate its losses. By deleveraging its balance sheet, a company sells off debt to lower its overall risk profile. Deleveraging can have serious financial consequences when a company, individual or nation tries to dispose of assets that are illiquid.

In this case, deleveraging may mean selling assets at relatively steep discounts. When an individual does this, he sells his widescreen TV he paid $2,000 for last year for $500 and whatever else he can unload for 5 cents on the dollar at a garage sale. As a result, deleveraging may lead to downward pressure on security and asset prices as more and more companies, individuals, or nations tighten their belts during the deleveraging process.

What happens when a nation deleverages because of rampant debt that no other nation wants to hold anymore?

One investment company in Europe tells clients how to prepare for potential 'global collapse'. Here’s another description of what US deleveraging might involve.

The preferred method of national deleveraging is inflation of the currency. For example, in the next five years, the United States might need to make the dollar worth 50 cents. A $2.29 half gallon of milk will cost close to $5.00. Inflating the currency to achieve deleveraging requires incomes to remain the same as they are today while prices of everything increase substantially.

Will our lifestyles be affected? Absolutely. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Such action would bring us back to a sustainable level of consumption – a place we strayed from several decades ago.

Is this what will happen? Probably not. We are so clever that we will figure out a way to prolong our over-consumption until the only recourse is a total collapse of our economy. That will most certainly affect our lifestyle, with unpredictable and extremely unpleasant consequences.

LiveJournal Tags: economy,deleveraging,inflation,over-consumption,unsustainable consumption

Deeming the investigators “ignorant”

Unbelievable and frightening.  No.  Not the Jihadists.  The ignorance of our FBI and other intelligence officials.

Remember the emails Hasan wrote to radical al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al Awlaki that the FBI intercepted, but “deemed innocent.”  Do you wonder what the emails said?

From ABC News:

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.

One military analyst, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, said…

"It sounds like code words.  That he's actually either offering himself up or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind."

Code words, indeed.  These were the words of a clearly devout Muslim whose light bulb of “sudden Jihad” just clicked on.  Are these ignorant fools (FBI and senior military) so out of touch with religion, generally, and Islam specifically, that they are blind to a devout radical when one is staring them in the face?

Our intelligence agencies and military officers need to spend much LESS time on training in political correctness and cultural diversity, and much MORE time on training in Islamic doctrine and signs of becoming “devout.”   It is true that in Islam “devout” is synonomous with “radical.”  The ones who become “devout” seem to be the very ones who seem to come down with the so-called “sudden Jihad syndrome.”

On a related note, Evan Kohlmann, a senior investigator for the New York-based NEFA Foundation, which researches Islamic militants, had this to say:

"The point is you don't have to be an official part of Al Qaeda to spread hatred and sectarian views.  If you look at the most influential documents in terms of homegrown terrorism cases, it's not training manuals on building bombs. The most influential documents are the ones that are written by theological advisers, some of whom are not even official Al Qaeda members."

Increasing the devoutness of Muslims in this country toward true Islam motivates them to find their own “best weapon” to demonstrate their faithfulness to Allah. 

They don’t use just “bombs”, you morons.  C’mon, FBI, get a clue!  You need to understand the motivation – the teachings of Islam – and not focus on the weapon of the moment.

LiveJournal Tags: sudden Jihad syndrome,jihad,radical Islam,FBI ignorance,wrong priorities,Islam,Muslims,Fort Hood,Hasan,Major Hasan,political correctness,cultural diversity

Why is a “liberal” liberal”; Why is a “conservative” conservative?

I was having a discussion with some liberal and conservative friends this evening and posed the question:  What in our backgrounds, do you suppose, caused you to become liberal and caused me to become conservative?  Of course we could have each told the other that they grew up as a clueless idiot.  But we were polite.

In fact, liberals and conservatives are pretty much polar opposites of one another in our world/life view of most things that matter.

Liberals are suspicious of business/free enterprise; conservatives believe business/free enterprise is our nations best hope and creates the motivation that made our nation great.

Liberals favor more government programs and government spending which require bigger/more government; conservative are suspicious of big government and want it smaller with less taxes.

Liberals believe people need to rely on government and are often incapable of solving problems on their own; conservative feel that problems are best solved by individuals without government intervention.

Liberals tend to be for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens; conservatives favor secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws.

Liberals tend to be amoral, live and let live, less spiritual/religious; conservatives tend to be more concerned about morality and tend to be more spiritual/religious.

This list could go on for several more feet.  Needless to say – we are very different from one another.

Why?  What caused us to be so different?

Certainly it couldn’t all be because of the way we were raised, could it?  We are all capable of independent thinking after we leave home.  Are the childhood biases we acquired so firmly implanted that we can’t escape them?

How much does our later education, college or otherwise, influence our basic world-view mindset?  Does one side or the other have better critical thinking skills?  Does it depend on what our career is – the special interests that we feel compelled to defend or promote because our livelihood depends on a given world view? 

Is it some significant life experience that turned us on or off to one set of views or another?  Were we influenced by who we associated with and respected the most?

In all likelihood it is a combination of all these factors that resulted in certain character traits that cause us to tend toward conservative or liberal.

My set of conclusions, given my world/life view are that the character traits each group develops are different in the following ways:

• Conservatives are more engaged in learning the issues while liberals are superficially engaged and follow populist fads like global warming
• Conservatives have better analytical skills and rely on facts while liberals are more gullible and follow whatever is popular sans facts.
• Conservatives are more open minded and receptive to objective information; while liberals base their preferences on emotion.
• Conservatives have a more independent spirit, tend to be more self-sufficient problem solvers  while liberals tend to be whiners and dependent on others and expect others to be the same.

So, do you think my analysis is spot on?

Other than that, we’re all the same.

LiveJournal Tags: liberals,conservatives

Obama’s Affinity for Islam…

Here is a video worthy of going viral on the net.  Obama’s comments bring to me the strongest feeling of being a foreigner in my own land.  He is our nation’s Trojan Horse who has entered our gates at the invitation of our ill-informed and gullible electorate.

His statements on this video about the glories of Islam deserve refutation:  He glorifies Islam beyond all common understanding of history.  He elevates the Islamic culture above all that America is based upon.

The video compresses every pro-Islamic statement Obama has publicly uttered over the past two years – statements when heard in isolation were uneasily dismissed as a random gaff or reminiscence of his childhood.  Most of us wishfully thought that such statements couldn’t possibly really represent the thoughts of OUR president.  To many, it clearly answers the questions about why a decision about Afghanistan is taking so long; why he panders to Islamic nations and shows disdain for Israel; why he eliminates the missile shield from one of our best European allies; why he supports Gaza, Palestine and Hamas over Israel, why he refuses to acknowledge that Fort Hood was attacked by a Muslim Jihadist to further Islamic supremacist goals.  It explains why in his book Audacity of Hope he promises to “stand with them [Muslim immigrants] if the political winds became ugly.”

What will it take for America to wake up?

LiveJournal Tags: Obama's Muslim video,Barack Obama,Obama,Islam,Muslim president,Trojan Horse

The left hates Christianity – finds it hard to prefer Christianity over Islam

First, listen to what Pat Robertson has to say about Islam…

He has been getting a lot of heat for saying what Islam really is, truths shared by many Islamic scholars – shared by many Muslims, including the Fort Hood Jihadist, Hasan, facts ignored or denied by the left and most media. Even Bill O’Reilly did a little ridiculing last night, not quite fully understanding what Islam really is.

Now listen to this next video…skip over to 1:42 and listen to the tirade by this ignorant human on The Young Turks web site. Cenk Uygur repeats the many slanderous half-truths liberals believe about Christianity to deflect Robertson’s critique of Islam.

I have never heard so many ignorant comparisons between Islam and Christianity in my life. He is a pro at twisted logic and twisted facts. He is apparently one of those individuals I wrote about earlier who believes every political system, every human thought, every cultural practice is as good or as evil as another. He is certainly ignorant about both Christianity and Islam. Once again here is an individual disingenuously comparing Christianity to Islam, failing to realize that Muslims have instigated more atrocities in two months than Christians have in a millennium. We wonder who might be the next “moderate” Muslim to turn pious and acquire “sudden Jihad syndrome.” Sounds like Cenk might be on his way to catching this psychosis – he has many of the same symptoms exhibited by Hasan - although there is no evidence he is currently Muslim.

He is also ignorant of the fact the the most devout among Muslims preach the greatest violence – violent Jihad. He is oblivious to the fact that the most devout among Christians tend to be pacifists, or at least, abhor violence.

My guess is this miscreant secretes outrageous blather for attention while Robertson does his thing to try to be genuinely helpful.

Here is more about this Islamic apologist:

Cenk Uygur, Esq., J.D. (pronounced /ˈdʒɛŋk ˈjuːɡər/, jenk yew-gur) is a Turkish-American who is the main host of the liberal talk radio show The Young Turks. He was also the host of the internet interview show Meet The Bloggers throughout its run.

The show currently airs in a number of places, including the 8pm slot on XM Satellite Radio's America Left, channel 167. Aside from airing on the radio, TYT has also made several online partnerships with media groups such as AOL News, TidalTV, and YouTube. The show's YouTube channel gets an average of 3 million hits per month.^{[citation needed]}

Uygur is also a regular blogger on The Huffington Post and an attorney. He grew up in East Brunswick Township, New Jersey, where he attended East Brunswick High School.^[1] Cenk admits to being a Republican in his youth.^[2] He first became a talk show host at a Washington, D.C. radio station on the weekends while working at Drinker, before eventually shifting to full-time radio work.

Cenk has appeared on television on numerous occasions, on MSNBC, CNN Headline News, E! Entertainment Channel, Al Jazeera, ABC News, Voice of America, NPR, and Fox News Channel.^[4]

Oh, he was also a lead on the failed super-liberal “Air America” radio show and continues to be a proponent of the fun liberal game called “Hate America First.”

This twisted individual is part of the ignorance we face as a nation. How did it go at Al Jazeera, Cenk?

LiveJournal Tags: Muslim atrocities,Cenk Uygur,Pat Robertson,Islam

Judging Islam

“Judge not lest ye be judged” is an expression we’ve grown up with that helps justify our political correctness and our penchant for cultural diversity.  That well-meaning expression is misunderstood and carried way too far in our society.  Too many interpret it to a mindless extreme:  Don’t judge between good and evil; right and wrong.  Don’t presume we are right and another person is wrong. Give every idea, utterance, and action of another the benefit of the doubt no matter how obscene, obscure, or objectionable it might be.

More accurately, the expression pertains to the fact that we are subject to the same standards by which we judge others.  Don’t judge unfairly; don’t judge out of ignorance.  Conversely, informed judgment is a good thing – as is “discernment”: the exercise of informed judgment.  Judgment is essential for us to be moral beings – to have a sense of right and wrong. 

Unfortunately, there are growing numbers of Americans who have become “moral relativists” who disdain or deny there is such a thing as right and wrong.  It is only someone’s “opinion.”  Any anti-social action is defended as someone’s freedom of expression.  Many of our political leaders, like General Casey who still blindly defends cultural diversity in the military over identifying the ideology of the Islamic terrorist who killed 13 soldiers, are moral relativists.

Cultural diversity is the handmaiden of moral relativism.  Our military, FBI, CIA, and many police departments practice moral relativism when they continue to give Islamists the benefit of the doubt despite their promotion of violence, bigotry, hatred, and Islamic supremacism.

Why is it OK for Islamists to demean, denounce, threaten, belittle, and bemeoan “the infidel”, but not ok for Jews and Christians to be critical of Islamist intolerance, supremacism and bigotry?  Is it our disdain of “judging” others?  Our affinity toward cultural diversity?  Or has it gone beyond that?

Have we transitioned from electing to be “culturally diverse” to being coerced into Dhimmitude?  It is appearing more and more that we are being intimidated into submission by the very ones to whom we granted the benefit of the doubt via our failure to judge.   This appears to be the case.  In the Fort Hood case, doctors and officers up and down the line are expressing that they failed to act on Hasan’s many obvious signs for fear of litigation by the Muslim community, fear of being called a bigot, or fear of disciplinary measures from their superior officers for violating their self-imposed rules of cultural diversity (aka “do not judge – do not think”).

There is no question that basic Islam as taught in the Qur’an, as written and practiced by Muhammad, as being promoted by the violent vocal minority of Muslims, teaches intolerance and Islamic Supremacism through any means up to and including violence and terror.  There is no doubt that Sharia law and Islam’s universal treatment of women is an anathema to our own culture and our own values.  Yet we give Muslims the benefit of the doubt.  Why?  Because we “assume” they are moderate and benign. And because we fear the consequences. 

Most Muslims appear to be patriotic, America-loving individuals.  No doubt many are.  The trouble with this assumption, as Hasan has demonstrated, is this:

1. We don’t know for sure which ones are truly “moderate and benign” and
2. We don’t know for sure when the “moderate and benign” kick over to the Jihadi phase of the devotion to Islam.

No, the same dilemma cannot be attributed to Christians and Jews and atheists.  These groups don’t have a tiny fraction of the track record in the past millennia that Islam has in the last decade.  Don’t even try that “moral equivalency” BS.

We need a major shift of thinking from the past several decades.  We need to become more judgmental, more discerning, less culturally diverse, more appreciative of our own culture, less tolerant of those in opposition to our culture.  This Veterans Day, we need to vow not to sacrifice our soldiers or our nation on the alter of cultural diversity.  General Casey; President Obama:  Get a Clue!

LiveJournal Tags: General Casey,Dhimmittude,cultural diversity,political correctness,Islam,moderate Islam,judging others

Nationality does not equate with Doctrinal Beliefs

Some fuzzy thinking individuals caution that we must not make the same mistakes we did during WWII when Americans were united in feeling uneasy about Japanese after Pearl Harbor.  They had good reason to feel uneasy about the Japanese back then.

These same fuzzy headed thinkers urge that we should not rush to judgment about Muslims in the same way.  However we have even better reason to feel uneasy about Muslims today.

A more accurate analogy would be to compare Nazis to Muslims, not Japanese to Muslims.  Japanese refer to the people of Japan, a nationality comprised of people with a variety of beliefs.  We embraced people of Japanese origin in our military because being simply Japanese did not necessarily mean that they ascribed to the supremacist, violently aggressive doctrine of their government. 

On the other hand, Muslims, by definition, ascribe to a doctrine that has shown itself to be supremacist and violently aggressive and has these principles embedded in its doctrine.  Muslim is not a nation – it is a belief system.

At this point in time in our understanding of Muslims, the people, and Islam, the doctrine, we obviously do not have the capacity or inclination to discern the difference between peaceful Muslims and Jihadi Muslims – or when the peaceful will turn Jihadi.  Until we have a desire to learn the difference and means to discern the difference, it is foolhardy to have Muslims in our military in the same way it was foolhardy to have avowed Nazis in the military during WWII.

LiveJournal Tags: Japanese and Muslims,cultural equivalency