A response to Anonymous Coward #6922410
Oct. 23rd, 2010 11:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsAnonymous Coward wrote:
Most Americans, regardless of what religion they hold, don't believe any of the above. They believe that our liberal legal system, amenable to change as cirmustance and expedience demand, is better suited to their lives and their futures than those derived from ancient books. In Christopher Hitchens' formulation, one of the major chores of civilization is to tame and domesticate religions. We've mostly done it with Christianity and Judaism, at least in the United States, and I would argue that we're doing it successfully with Islam. Most of the Muslim Americans I know-- which is only a handful, and probably not those who pray five times a day-- are more Americanized than radicalized. Even the one who regularly wears a dhul fiqar ("Sword of the Prophet") pendant listens to profanity-laced hip-hop and worries more about his son's kindergarten than he does Islam.
Our safety and security as a nation depends upon our continuing this trend: of subverting respect for all forms of religious law, for making secular law, with all of its messy legislative and executive issues, the only law we pay any attention to whatsoever. And that ideal, of subverting and subjecting all religious laws to critical analysis and rejecting them as necessary, is a conservative value. The Ten Commandments and the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are completely incompatible, and they must remain so.
I'll say it again: Anjem Choudry's claim that "The Flag of Islam will fly over the White House someday" is a component of a fantasy ideology. Muslims make up less that 2% of our population. In my lifetime, and that of my children, and even grandchildren, it will never happen, and after that, I think we should let the future deal with itself, and not try to have veto power over it, just as I don't think the generation of Herbert Hoover ought to have veto power over what I think and do.
Christians, in contrast, are 88% of the American population. We're in much greater danger from our own, Christianist fantasists who believe that someday a giant cross will be erected above the White House, and are outraged that it is not already there.
(I'm still trying to figure out why Anonymous Coward thinks "liberal" would hurt someone's feelings. Has he never listened to liberal radio? Does he still think "fag" is a useful epithet after high school?)
The Malik ibn Anas writer of sharia law has the belief that all muslims share in common that islamic law is the best form of law, which should be spread to all the world. The varying factions of tribal conflicts we see in iraq are those who want to implement this law. Sharia Law. Which would you prefer for our government: Women without basic representation against an abusive husband in a court case. Or a government (current one) that believes in a womens right to testify and have others testify against him?; that does'nt believe in dismemberment of body parts for stealing; in religious tolerance and tolerance towards liberal...oh I'm sorry I hurt your feelings...progressives.Would you argue that all Christians share in common the belief that Biblical Law is the best form of law, which should be spread to all the world? There are plenty of American Christians who believe exactly that. Judaism is famously insular and not evangelizing, but the American Levirite and Torat HaMelech Orthodox movement argue that Talmudic law is the best form of law, and attempting to influence Jews to other forms of legal thinking is a declaration of war.
Most Americans, regardless of what religion they hold, don't believe any of the above. They believe that our liberal legal system, amenable to change as cirmustance and expedience demand, is better suited to their lives and their futures than those derived from ancient books. In Christopher Hitchens' formulation, one of the major chores of civilization is to tame and domesticate religions. We've mostly done it with Christianity and Judaism, at least in the United States, and I would argue that we're doing it successfully with Islam. Most of the Muslim Americans I know-- which is only a handful, and probably not those who pray five times a day-- are more Americanized than radicalized. Even the one who regularly wears a dhul fiqar ("Sword of the Prophet") pendant listens to profanity-laced hip-hop and worries more about his son's kindergarten than he does Islam.
Our safety and security as a nation depends upon our continuing this trend: of subverting respect for all forms of religious law, for making secular law, with all of its messy legislative and executive issues, the only law we pay any attention to whatsoever. And that ideal, of subverting and subjecting all religious laws to critical analysis and rejecting them as necessary, is a conservative value. The Ten Commandments and the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are completely incompatible, and they must remain so.
I'll say it again: Anjem Choudry's claim that "The Flag of Islam will fly over the White House someday" is a component of a fantasy ideology. Muslims make up less that 2% of our population. In my lifetime, and that of my children, and even grandchildren, it will never happen, and after that, I think we should let the future deal with itself, and not try to have veto power over it, just as I don't think the generation of Herbert Hoover ought to have veto power over what I think and do.
Christians, in contrast, are 88% of the American population. We're in much greater danger from our own, Christianist fantasists who believe that someday a giant cross will be erected above the White House, and are outraged that it is not already there.
(I'm still trying to figure out why Anonymous Coward thinks "liberal" would hurt someone's feelings. Has he never listened to liberal radio? Does he still think "fag" is a useful epithet after high school?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 07:57 pm (UTC)http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6232
I don't think it supports your (reasonable) dismissal of Choudry but the concept is fascinating. Imo a good example is 2000: Nader (fantasy theatre) vs Gore.
I'm not sure al Qaeda was going for theatre rather than Clausewitzian war, but that's certainly the use BUSH made of it.
I've nicked a paragraph from your post for my LJ, hope that's ok.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-24 05:21 pm (UTC)The only way they'll do anyone any harm is if they make you burst from too many cuppas.