It is modernity that is islam’s enemy – and unless we are willing to reject modernity ourselves, islam must be crushed.
This clash is no more about freedom of religion than was the clash between advancing European settlers and indigenous tribes in North America in the 19th Century. The clash is of culture: Pre-Modern v. Modern.
The clash between islam and the West has little to do with religion; it has to do with a cult that rejects modernity and is willingly killing all who reject a pre-Enlightenment, pre-modern, barbaric world.
People must grasp the problem before it can be dealt with successfully. As long as our policymakers and pundits pretend the point of conflict is religion – as we define “religion” in the West (and “religion” is, after all, a Western word describing a Western philosophy for which no analog exists in islam: Separation of Church and State), the West remains handicapped by our legacy of religious freedom.
People unaware of history – a cohort that now seems to include all our policymakers and pundits on both sides of the aisle – are unable to fathom what is driving the conflict. It really is not that difficult.
In ANY culture based on tribes, those outside the tribe are MORTAL ENEMIES – and are killed. This ALWAYS has been the case. It is what sharia-political-islam is doing today; it’s what the Sunni-Shia war has been about for a millennium: one tribe v. another tribe.
Have we dealt with Pre-Modern v. Modern before? Yes. Successfully? Yes. What do you think the settling of America was all about?
Those fantasizing in ignorance of the American West and the American Indian pretend that the Modern settlers and the Pre-Modern indigenous tribes could have gotten along. This could NEVER have happened – and it would have been the settlers preventing it.
Here’s an thought experiment: Hypothesize a pre-modern, pregnant Kiowa woman in her pre-modern teepee outside of modern Denver because the ignorant demand the Indian be left alone to his culture. The woman has trouble in childbirth. Do you A ) take her to a Modern hospital and use Modern technology to save her and her baby? OR … B ) accept her Pre-Modern culture and let her die?
If you chose A, you are being paternalistic, saying Pre-Modernity is fine until things get hard – then it needs to be replaced with Modernity. In other words “coexistence” is crap you don’t actually believe in – but you are willing to sacrifice others to it until things get hard.
If you chose B, you are sacrificing your humanity – and her life – to your ideology, letting her die for YOUR insistence that her pre-modern existence means she is some kind of living museum piece on whom you cannot intrude, that you are perfectly willing to let die for your entertainment – which is what visiting a museum is all about if you refuse to use it for learning.
By ALLOWING the Pre-Modern to coexist with the Modern, those demanding coexistence have CHOSEN to use Modernity – created, implemented, accepted AGAINST those living in Pre-Modern cultures – to SAVE a woman dying BECAUSE of her Pre-Modern culture; they DEMAND Pre-Modern co-existence – until it becomes problematic and then DEMAND Modernity step-in.
Cultures and people are NOT museums in which we watch people do their thing, stepping in when “their thing” becomes lethal, using our supposed moral authority to give them what we had to fight them to invent, what we had to fight the entire infantile “coexist” crowd to make available.
It is infantile to demand Modernity to save a Pre-Modern woman one is not willing to force into the Modern world.
If you chose B, you are saying that this woman has no value beyond YOUR ego; even though we have the technology to save her we MUST not – she is nothing more than a museum piece to your ego, and her life of no importance to you – at all. It is difficult to invent something less moral than that.
Choosing B also defines the fundamental immorality of the “coexist” crowd: They willingly put – they DEMAND putting – THEIR EGO ahead of the life of this hypothetical woman.
American Indians routinely, and brutally, killed those outside the tribe – white, brown, red, black. The issue is the tribal culture. A settler stripped naked and staked over an anthill in the broiling sun was not uncommon, nor was a man staked down, his stomach sliced open and having a campfire built in it. Nor was strapping men, women and children to a wagon wheel of a wagon attacked and looted, and shooting flaming arrows into them until they died or the Indians tired of the fun.
In ALL tribal cultures those inside the tribe kill everyone outside the tribe. This is EXACTLY what shariah-political-islam is doing now.
Refusing to acknowledge this fact does not change it. Dealing with “Tribal elders” is existentially foolish. ANY nation still run by tribes needs to be quarantined and, if members of that tribe attack those outside, the tribe needs to be exterminated, period.
Modernity and Pre-Modernity CANNOT coexist. They MUST NOT be ALLOWED to coexist if leaders place ANY value AT ALL on human life, particularly the lives of women and children, those most at-risk in ANY Pre-Modern culture. Pre-Modern cultures value NOTHING about women other than menial labor and childbearing.
Want to talk about a “war on women”? Start with ANY Pre-Modern culture – and keep going until you find a political party that demands acceptance OF this Pre-Modern culture.
The refusal to recognize that this clash is between Modern and Pre-Modern is a self-imposed handicap that, if not stopped, will kill the West. We already accept unconstitutional infringements on our speech in order to paternalistically “not offend” muslims who have CHOSEN to live within our non-muslim culture. People talk about “becoming like the enemy” if we sacrifice our freedoms in fighting them. Well… who do you THINK is winning when we implement speech codes, denying what have been basic rights for centuries? NEWSFLASH: FREEDOM IS LOSING.
Non-offensive speech DOES NOT NEED PROTECTION. The ENTIRE POINT of Free Speech is to protect OFFENSIVE SPEECH.
Are muslims really so Pre-Modern they cannot take criticism – and will kill everyone criticizing them? Yes.
Are muslims really so childish that free speech, thought and assembly offend them – so we need to terminate our primary rights – for which we have fought and died for a millennium? Yes.
Are muslims really such Pre-Modern tribal peoples that they will continue to kill all NOT from THEIR OWN TRIBE? (Don’t forget – more muslims have been killed by other muslims – Shia v Sunni – than by all infidels throughout history.) Yes.
This is about Pre-Modern v. Modern, and only ONE culture will survive. If you care at all about freedom of speech, thought, assembly, religion, of women’s rights and children’s rights, then you CANNOT ALSO BE PRO-ISLAM OR BELIEVE IN THE INFANTILE IDEA OF COEXISTENCE.
The bottom line is all of this is: If you support ANYTHING other than demanding that political islam – shariah – be yanked into the Modern world – or exterminated – you ARE AN ENEMY OF FREEDOM, LIBERTY, PROGRESS, MODERNITY, and all the rights we have held dear for millennia in THE WEST.