Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Site best viewed on a computer screen - not optimized for cell phones
50 most recent articles updated on this Web-Site: BLOG (Web-Log) Page
I don't know about you, but I never seriously looked at the Islam Way before the events of 9/11/2001. Other than in a very broad-brush sort of way, I never looked closely at the practitioners, or the Koran, or the Hadith, or at what is publicly professed or what is taught by the recognized teachers of Islam and the keepers of Islamic faith. But then, it happened. To say that it got my attention would be to put it very mildly indeed.
The particularly stunning thing to me was the ordinary people - not wild extremists, not radical "Islamists", not necessarily Socialists - but ordinary, work-a-day Moslems who spontaneously cheered, celebrated and danced in the streets, upon hearing of the events of 09/11/2001. In Egypt; in Palestine; in Jordan; in Syria; in Arabia; in Iraq; in Iran; all across North Africa. Everywhere on Earth, people walking in the Islam way took delight and were rejoicing in our tragedy and suffering.
Why?Although the mainstream media did everything in their power to censor it, just as they censored the images of Americans diving out of or off of the burning towers in New York City, anyone with access to the internet could see what was happening, in spite of the SLIMC1 and our entire mainstream news media. The deliriously happy and rejoicing people who were dancing in the streets for sheer joy were not Taliban, or Al-Quaida, or other odd-ball extremists. Something in these events touched a positive chord in all those quite ordinary people who followed the Islam Way.
And, besides the clear, immediate SLIMC1 censorship of certain aspects of the news surrounding 9/11/2001, there were the mainstream media's immediate and absolutely certain pronouncements, with heavy emphasis and repetition, regarding the absolutely peaceful nature of the teachings of the Islam Way. Having witnessed the mainstream media's treacherous and, in my opinion, traitorous, reporting throughout the entire Vietnam War, this media treatment alone was enough to make me look more closely at the Islam Way.
In this page, the Catholic American Thinker examines the Islam Way to find common ground for mutual tolerance. A very tall order, as it turns out. I submit that the events of September 11, 2001 require us all to look more closely at this religion, this idea, this philosophy, this Islam Way that so publicly and so loudly professes partnership with us and with the Jews as "people of the Book."
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
But, if that is what is professed in Islam, then the behavior of those who claim to be and are generally recognized to be the most strident and orthodox practitioners of the Islam Way raises some serious questions. It may be a problem between a faith, and the proper following of that faith; improper following of a rule does not in and of itself condemn a rule.
However, as a practical matter, there must be limits to religious, social, civil and legal toleration. We cannot tolerate everything and anything, or all sense of morality, order and law would become meaningless. The question at hand is whether the Islam Way is a way of peace, or at least is peaceful enough to allow peaceful co-existence as close neighbors.
We can begin with a thought experiment. Let me pose a very direct, very simple, yes-or-no question:
The proper way to ask this question is to simply ask it, and then shut up. Even after the initial response, hold your tongue. Listen carefully to the words, and remember, it's a yes or no question. The truth does not take many words.
Ask that question of any Moslem living in any Islamic country, and the most likely, although admittedly quick and "knee-jerk" answer, will be a resounding no. After a moment's thought, many might change their minds. Put it on a public poll, and odds are the majority would vote "no". (This might be a good question for Aljazeera to pursue.)
Kick it up a notch, and ask the question, in a public forum, of the heads-of-state of various Islamic countries. In most cases, it will take many, many words for them to say no; in a few, they would immediately say no. I would not bet that many or even any would say yes.
Note well that countries such as Turkey that have representative Democracy may not be considered to be true Islamic countries, an Islamic majority population notwithstanding. There is only one law in the Islam Way and that is Islamic law; all other forms of law are against the religion of Islam. Islam not only professes, but is, a direct combination of Church and State. This means that, to whatever degree that a country is a true representative Democracy, to that same degree have the majority moved away from strict adherence to the Islam Way. Democracy is against their religion.
Also note well that organizations such as the PLO may not be trusted to answer truthfully. Their word is worthless. The record is too full of incidents in which PLO luminaries such as Yasir Arafat would give peaceful sounding speeches to dignitaries or representatives or Western journalists, followed by speeches the same day in Arabic praising suicide murderers as martyrs and calling for even more suicide murderers. While the facial expression never changed, the words out of the Arabic-speaking side of his lying face were always quite different from the words out of the English-speaking side of his lying face. And all the people cheered him.
And one last note, regarding ability of heads-of-state in truly Islamic lands to answer the yes-or-no question on their own authority. The Islam Way demands one and only one law, one and only one authority. Therefore, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the King is also chief Imam, or the "pope" and absolute religious leader of his country. Yet in countries such as Iran, with it's current apparent strong-man President, the real legal authority, both civil and ecclesial, rests in the head of an Islamic council; the President is merely a public figurehead and spokesman, doing the bidding of that council, nothing more and nothing less. The council has veto power over everything anyone else in the government says or does, including the President, who had better never go against the council. And, there are the "hybrid" countries like Pakistan and Indonesia, where it's difficult, from our vantage point, to tell who's on first.
This question-answer-scenario cannot rise above the level of a thought experiment, for most of us, because we have so little contact with Moslems. But we do have the clear record of history, and we have the words of the recognized leaders of Islam. The result of MY thought experiment question to Islam in general was the answer, NO, the Jew living in current day Israel does not have any right to continue to live. The Islam Way cannot coexist with Jews living in Israel.
Question: How can this be reconciled with the peaceful sounding public pronouncements of Islam that Christians, Jews and Moslems are all "People Of The Book"?
Answer: It cannot be reconciled. There is no possible reconciliation between these two positions.
There is a train of thought within the Islam Way that seems to want us all dead. The question before us is whether this train of thought is aberrant, or normal, within the Islam Way. Is Islam itself at war against us, and everyone, or, as some claim, only some Wahabist and/or other radical strains of Islam at war with us? The correct answer to this question may be of critical importance to the survival of Western Civilization itself.
When we ask for logical reasons for multiple devout Moslems throwing their lives away in order to kill lots of innocent Americans who never did anything to any Moslem, we are always pointed to American government support for Israel, first, and to other lesser American government support issues, such as support for the Shah of Iran. Apparently, American government policy and diplomacy has put continued innocent American life, even here in America, on our own soil, at odds with the Islam Way.
So, let's look at that.
Regarding the Shah of Iran, he succeeded his father to the throne in 1941. My guess is that those who are convinced that America is endlessly guilty of "Yankee Imperialism" feel that we should have imposed American Imperialism in Iran and stopped the succession to the throne of Iran. We had good diplomatic relations with the Shah, and that is seen as a negative; apparently, to accommodate the Islam Way, we should have had bad diplomatic relations with him.
Nothing here makes any sense at all. If the people of Iran who are old enough to remember could vote in honest elections by secret ballot, they would probably submit that life was better for the working man, the voting woman and the young scholar under the Shah of Iran than it was later. So what's the problem?
There is no decent, rational explanation, outside of the Islam Way, for Iran to have dismissed international law and diplomatic immunity, violated sovereign embassy ground, taken over a foreign embassy and held 50 American hostages the way they did, for 444 days, thumbing their noses at smiling Jimmie Carter right up until the very day that Reagan took office. These were not the acts of what we all recognize as a civilized government, but of a lawless barbarian gang, as undeserving of diplomacy or even recognition as they are lucky to remain alive. Here we have a contemporary history example of the Islam Way. Is it a good one, or a bad one?
The Iranian point is simply not worth arguing about. I truly love a good argument and I love to argue, but only with intelligent people who can put forth a good, decent argument, well thought out, stimulating, and worthy of consideration. Those who defend the position of the revolutionary regime in Iran argue from a position of sheer, almost imbecilic stupidity, and it is never profitable to argue with fools. If this is an example of the Islam Way then we and all the non-Islamic world must align ourselves against it.
Moving our examination of the Islam Way to questions regarding the nature of Palestine and Palestinians, we come to what is purported by experts to be the crux of the problem that brought about the events of 09/11/2001. First, what is a Palestinian, and when did they come to be Palestinians? We know that Palestine, as a place, goes way back to fairly early Old Testament times. The Jews took it over, lost it, returned to it, were ruled by the Greeks for a time, then by the Romans, and then they gave birth to Christianity. So, early on, Palestine was peopled by Jews, Greeks, Romans and Christians. The religion of Islam was not invented yet, so there were no Moslems there, or anywhere else in the world. Thus, we had the Hebrew Way, the Greek way, the Roman way, and the Christian Way, but not the Islam Way, yet.
So, if the question hinges around who was there first, then the Jews win, hands down. The Moslems were the Johnnie-come-lately group on the scene. But, that's not what the question hinges on, right? Still, as we go forth, we need to keep in mind the simple fact that there have been Jewish Palestinians and Christian Palestinians living in Palestine for many, many centuries, long before there was ever any such thing as any Moslem Palestinian or the Islam Way.
There will be more pages coming to the Catholic American Thinker on the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Middle Ages and so forth, and I don't want to wind up writing the same thing twice. The Fourth Crusade might even wind up on its own separate page, because of the great number of things that happened that cannot be left out of even a greatly summarized history. So the history involving Islam's great wars of conquest and the later Crusades, with their effects on the Christian Way and the Islam Way, will be discussed later in other pages.
We'll pick it up here at the "Balfour" Declaration in 1917. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote to Jewish leader Lord Rothshild, to assure him that the British government supported the notion of providing a permanent homeland for the Jews. The British government sympathized with the Jewish position and hoped to win more Jewish support for the Allies in the First World War. The "Balfour Declaration" became the basis for increasing international support for the founding of the modern state of Israel. The letter was published a week later in The Times of London; here it is:
Perhaps this put the Brits on a collision course with the Islam Way. At that time there were some 80,000 Jews and some 600,000 Arabs in Palestine. In the thirties, of course, Hitler's activities began to change these numbers as Jews fled the slaughter. Islam, of course, took the side of the Nazis in the second Great War. Post-war Britain, in a truly difficult position, tried rather unsuccessfully to limit immigration while sorting out difficulties arising from the beginnings of an Islamic pan-Arab league, while defending against both Jewish and Arab open guerrilla warfare. The Arabs would not accept a partitioned Palestine – period. As soon as the Second great war was over with, the Jews demanded that a million Jews be allowed to immigrate immediately.
The United Nations was unable to come to a resolution because of the refusal of the Arabs to accept partition. In the end, Britain threw up her hands and withdrew from the seemingly impossible mess. The day Britain withdrew, May 14, 1948, the new state of Israel proclaimed itself. The United States and Russia immediately recognized the new state, the last time they would agree with each other on anything for many decades.
Egypt immediately attacked Israel on one front while Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq joined Palestinian Arabs on another, but Israel fought them all off with alacrity, and a U.N. truce followed. In 1949 Jerusalem became the new Capital. In the 1948-1949 time frame, due partially to some Zionist-extremist terrorism and partially due to a hard-line position of the new government, there was a great exodus of some 750,000 Palestinian Arabs to camps in Egypt and Jordan.
They would soon prove to be a seriously unstable and destabilizing population, everywhere they were, and everywhere they went.
That was the 1948 War of Independence. There followed the 1956 Sinai Campaign; the 1967 Six Day War; and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel won every single time. Personally, I will never understand why they ever yielded an inch of territory, unless it was territory they could not strategically hold. In between these wars were periods not of peace, but of small actions and military "incidents" and Egypt's "war of attrition" and so forth. The position of the Arab League, as summarized at the Khartoum Summit Conference (August 1967) called for "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no recognition of Israel" has never changed. I consider it to be part of the Islam Way.
So, there it stands.
On the one side, the Jews are there for the duration. They are not leaving. That is final, and is not negotiable. The Jews in Israel are not going anywhere.
On the other side, the Arabs will not accept the fact that, humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat not withstanding, they cannot uproot the nation of Israel. This stubbornness has become the most visibly predominant part of the Islam Way.
And so some of them, notably Iran, work on finding and motivating others with the technological ability required to come up with weapons with which to exterminate the nation of Israel, even if it means rendering the land forever uninhabitable. This, too, is now part of the Islam Way.
So, back to the question, who has the "right" to occupy Palestine / Israel / that-land-over-there that they keep fighting over. In the practical, every day real world, you can forget the ancient history, and even much of the recent history. That was then and this is now. The bottom line question is, by what right do the Jews claim sovereignty over there?
The same way we claim sovereignty here in America, and that the British claim sovereignty in Britain - by right of conquest. It's a very old rule and it still applies today.
Before any part of America was conquered, it belonged to some Indian tribe, or a confederation of tribes. Talk to an Indian historian about the Iroquois League, for instance. Or, look at the history, as it exists, of the Lakota. The Black Hills did not "belong" to them from the dawn of time. It belonged to them by right of conquest; they took it from someone else. They "discovered" the horse and became outstanding cavalry, and, from Minnesota, swept across the American plains in a manner similar to the Mongols, the Huns, the Turks and so many others. No matter how the new Left in academia tries to idealize and politically-correct the history of it, American Indians were not and are not much different than any one else; they are regular people. Recently I saw a bumper sticker that said "You are on Indian land." Horse patooties. I'm on American land, and so are you. Get over it.
The problem with the Palestinian Moslems and their predominantly Arab Moslem allies is that they cannot get over it. They despise us because we take the side of the Jews, which is, of course, the moral side, the side that opposes the Islam Way, and the Arab/Palestinian goal of flat out genocide. Therefore, our right to continue to live is extinguished in their eyes the same as is the right of the Jew to continue to live, probably not only in Israel, but everywhere. I submit that this is now part of the Islam Way.
Supposedly, American support of the Jews is the "only reason" they survived and were victorious all those times. Right. Heaps of dollars and even modern jet planes do not win wars against huge odds all by themselves. If I gave the skinny little kid next door a pocketful of dollars and a baseball bat, that wouldn’t make him tough enough to take on the neighborhood gang, single-handed, and win. Much is made of the "humiliation" of the Arabs that later manifests itself in rage. Well, I don't know what we can do about that or why we should even be the least bit concerned about it. When nations and allegiances and vast armies perform as shabbily as theirs consistently have, they are supposed to be humiliated. What's there to be proud of? Are we all supposed to pretend that reality is other than what it is just for the benefit of un-earned Arab self esteem?
If Imams and highly respected terrorists are free to not only openly insult Christians and Jews, but kill them with impunity and even encouragement, to cheers, then the Islam Way has no reason to expect us to adhere to their "please don't hurt my super delicate little feelings" rule and to boost their undeserving self esteem. Even granting a short time of study, I have yet to find anything at all that is praiseworthy in the Islam Way, which looks more and more treacherous and murderous, and just flat out stupid, the more I look.
The Islam Way teaches that there are three worlds, or domains, or houses, in which to live the Islam Way. For those of us raised from the cradle to be tolerant, the ramifications of this information are going to rock our world. These worlds or domains or houses are not to be found in the Koran or the Hadith, but in the consistent teachings of the Islam Way. Look them up on the internet.
The Islam Way domain number one is called Dar Al-Islam, the domain of, or more literally, the house of submission. It refers to lands under Islamic government. The name implies a high degree of religious security, defined as freedom to fully and completely practice the religion of Islam out in the open. If a Moslem practices Islam freely, then he is considered to be living in Dar Al-Islam, at least in his immediate neighborhood, even if he happens to be living in some secular or otherwise non-Islamic land. Dar Al-Islam is a domain of peace and not war.
The Islam Way domain number two is Dar Al-Sulh, the house of Truce, or of Temporary Peace. This describes a Moslem community that is established in a foreign land but representing a minority still too weak to wage open Jihad. After the community is well established, firm and growing in strength it will change to the third domain.
The Islam Way domain number three is Dar Al-Harb, the house of war. This domain refers to all areas outside of Islamic rule. This is where Christians and Jews and Atheists and Buddhists and Hindus, etc., and, perhaps even especially, secularists, live.
In the most ancient tradition of the Islam Way, the entire world is divided into Dar Al-Islam, the house of God, and Dar Al-Harb, the house of infidels and unbelievers. The word Jihad translates to Struggle, and represents the spiritual struggle of Islam against "infidels." The most common usage that I find of the word Jihad is to achieve the goal of expanding the borders of Dar Al-Islam at the expense of the borders of Dar Al-Harb by force. We're talking about physical, worldly borders here, not anything spiritual. And we're not talking about willing or free choice conversions here, but rather, either absolute submission or death. Conversion by the sword.
This is no drill.
Enter each of these domains into your favorite search engine and see what Islam itself predominantly teaches. This is the Islam Way.
This is not merely the teaching of Osama or some other nutcase. This is the universal, recognized teaching of Islam itself. The notion that Islam is a religion of peace is false; it is a religion of world conquest and of murder, enslavement and violence. The fact that a clear majority of Moslems are peaceful and decent is not BECAUSE of the religion of Islam, but in SPITE of it. The goodness and decency of the majority of Moslems is due to the inherent goodness of man; Islam seeks to turn them into Jihadist murderers and enslavers. With some percentage, it will always succeed, because of the violence of the Islam Way that is within the Koran itself. The Islam Way is clearly spelled out in black and white.
We can look at the Koran itself, at Koran-Browse and Search and either browse, or go to the bottom of the page to enter search criteria. Here are some passages of interest to "unbelievers."
The seeds of violence and conquest are right there in the sacred texts of the Islam Way, in the Koran itself; in every age, there will be those in whom those seeds take root. Our war is not with Islamists or Islamo-Fascists or mere Islamic radicals; our war is with Islam itself. The Islam Way like the Moslem People MOSTLY appears to be quite peaceful; so does the resting cobra. What we are up against is an idea; a religion; an ideology. We need to do battle with this idea. Even if only one out of a hundred, or only one out of a thousand living in the Islam Way "sprout" from these Koranic seeds and are moved to self-sacrificial murder in the name of Islam, that's a whole lot of terrorists, today, and spread out over the future centuries. It’s the idea, the religion, that needs to be dealt with. The problem won't die with Osama.
You need to learn whatever you can about the Islam Way. Take this as fair warning. What you don't know about the Islam Way can make you dead.
When President Bush ordered military action in Afghanistan I applauded, but I thought his goals were too ambitious and too long term. When he ordered military action in Iraq, again I applauded, and again I thought his goals were too ambitious and too long term. In both cases, I thought that our problem was with the leadership of the country involved, and therefore that we should destroy their military as much as necessary to simply kill or capture every member of the sitting government, and then just get the hell out of there and let the chips fall where they may. Our problem was with the rulers and not the people; if a new ruler rose up against us, we would have to deal with that then. But our immediate problem was simply with the rulers of the moment.
Besides, I didn't think either the people of Afghanistan or the people of Iraq were ready for Democracy, or even wanted it, or even knew what it was. I did know, early on, that Democracy was against their religion. Well, President Bush was right, and I was wrong.
The first glimmer of hope for Democracy I saw was an Iraqi woman on camera who had lost a child, and was asked by someone off camera if she thought it was worth it. After thinking a moment, she said yes, if a better Iraq would come out of it.
That said a lot.
Democracy in the temporal order, like Judaism and Christianity in the spiritual order, cannot be imposed; people have to want it. It is something people have to be willing to die for, or to lose children for; otherwise, if there is any opposition to it at all, it will never be achieved.
Any people who do not think freedom is worth fighting for will never have freedom. In a similar manner, any people who have freedom and are not willing to fight to keep it, will lose it.
The history of it shows that President Bush was right, in both countries. In moving toward a secular Democracy, which the majority proved they are in favor of, that same majority moved a little bit out of the Islam Way, which does not allow government other than by Islamic law. The best way to fight a TERRITORIAL war against Islam is to promote representative Democracy. Without promoting any other religion, representative government is a potential "wedge" issue that can show people a way to live under civil law that makes no religious demands of anyone. Or at least makes considerably softer demands within the Islam Way.
While their constitution and beginning laws may not do this perfectly - we must remember that perfection is not of this world, but of the next - even in its imperfection, it is a step in the right direction. Look at truly Islamic lands, such as Saudi Arabia, and you see one strong man who is a law unto himself - flat out, unrepresentative dictatorship. Any government of men, rather than government of laws, is always subject to morph into a government of mere whim. Any level of representative Democracy, however primitive, however imperfect, has got to be an improvement over that. Even a Parliamentary compromise government, to whatever degree that it is truly representative, grants that same degree of freedom from the Islam Way.
And, seeing the elections, the happy people and the purple fingers, and having some time to reflect, I see that President Bush was right and I was wrong in another area too. It would have been wrong to just militarily kick butt, take ground, achieve specific objectives and then bug out. The people would have been left in a terrible state of confusion and chaos, and at the mercy of potential new ruthless leaders from among them, and at the mercy of ruthless neighbors. It is heartening to see, via the internet, the new roads, sewers, water treatment, power supplies and so forth, and the truly grateful people interacting freely with American servicemen who are predominantly Christian. It is clear that the tide of public opinion among the Moslems there has turned against the foreign terrorists and the remnants of the Baathist resistance. Perhaps, with the blinders removed, the myopic vision of the Islam way will open up to reveal a much broader world.
The people have tasted of something new.
I don't particularly care what they think in France or in Germany or anywhere else; Bush did a good job. No one in France or Germany or Russia or at the United Nations or anywhere else is going to protect us, our way of life and our constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic; the President of the United States is the only one who has sworn a solemn oath to do that. You may call me a Bushie if it pleases you to do so, I don't mind atall; indeed that is what I am.
So, let the Lefties and the foreigners of the world show their condescending disdain, looking down their snotty noses at this arrogant "cowboy" American President. Who cares? He is my President, not theirs. And I bless his Texas boots, and his Texas hat, and his Texas belt buckle, and his Texas drawl, and his Texas walk, and his Texas horse, and his Texas pickup truck, and, most especially, his Texas decisiveness.
I just wish he would cut down some on the spending; but then, if he did that, he would probably be perfect. I don't know if my poor old heart could stand an absolutely perfect President. I would probably up and die of sheer Republican political ecstasy.
My only real fear is how many times he (and virtually everyone else in government) has emphasized the peaceful nature of Islam. I'm afraid he's misinformed about the nature of the Islam Way. The general feel of everything in the news is that the Islam Way is a way of peace. The Islam Way is a way of continually expanding territory through alternating periods of truce and temporary peace and war. That's the way it is.
Question: What does Truce mean in the Islam Way?
The Islam Way insists upon new Revelation after the close of the Apostolic age.
In contrast to the teaching of the Islam Way, the Holy Roman Catholic Church has taught through the ages that all "public" Revelation of the Word of God ended with the death of the last Apostle. It's all summed up in the Depositum Fidei, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, of all the Public Revelation given by God to man. The Depositum Fide is fixed forever; nothing may be added to it, nothing may be detracted from it, nothing in it may be changed. This is the Revealed Truth required of believers. Which contradicts the Islam Way.
Private revelation, as in the visions and visionaries such as at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe and so forth, is a totally different matter. If and when the Church approves these events, the approval only means that belief in them, which is optional, is not harmful to faith because there is nothing in them that contradicts the Depositum Fidei. No private revelation is ever added to the Public Revelation, which contains the Truths required to be held by the faithful. This stands in contrast to the claimed new Revelation of the Islam Way, which is required to be held by believers.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
All of this contradicts the Islam Way, which claims not only new Revelation but even a new, non-apostolic, "prophetic" authority to interpret the new Revelation.
The Church's position is, of course, in accordance with Scriptures, as the Scriptures were established long before the Islam Way even existed, as the following examples show.
In the face of all of this, we learn from the Islam Way that there has been a new Revelation, which is to be added to the old, and the Islam Way includes Islam itself as a new member of the "people of the book."
If those walking in the Islam Way are talking about the Bible, have any of them ever even read it? It appears that they have co-opted chunks of the Old and New Testaments and merged them with what might be what we call apocryphal or other non-canonical writings of the era. Even the parts from our actual Scripture that they have commandeered appear to be twisted and perverted.
The Islam Way recognizes the notion of the Virgin Birth, and the holy position of the Blessed Virgin; all well and good. And, the Islam Way recognize Jesus Christ - Let's stop right there for a moment.
When we say that Christians and Jews are people of the book we are speaking about the Old Testament. Christians and Jews differ only on the recognition of Jesus Christ and what He taught. They worship differently in how they interpret the First Great Commandment; they order their civil lives almost identically because of their similar interpretations of the Second Great Commandment. Christians and Jews share a common ethos or moral code by which to live and order their lives. Religious Jews and Christians hold human life to be sacred and seek especially to protect innocent human life.
On the other hand, the Moslems have co-opted major chunks, but only chunks, of both Old and New Testaments. The do not hold human life to be sacred, and they have no comprehension of the meaning of the word innocent as it might be applied anywhere outside their own house of submission. In the Islam Way, Jesus Christ is a highly respected prophet, second only to Mohammed. Now, I can't speak for what Moslems hold in the Islam Way. But I think any Jew or any Christian would agree that the test of any true prophet is whether what he said was true or not. True prophets do not prophesy falsehood. Now, if Jesus Christ is held by the Islam Way to be a highly respected prophet, indeed ranked second only to Mohammed, then, why do Moslems walking in the Islam Way not accept what Jesus Christ said about Himself, namely, that He is God. ???
He said it so many times and in so many ways that there is no way that anyone who ever read the Bible could miss it. He even said it a couple of times using the name of God, which is, by the way, I Am, rather than Allah, which is not to be found in the Bible. Not only did He say this about Himself, but many other times it was said to Him or about Him in His presence and He did not correct the speaker. This is a flat out contradiction of what the Islam Way teaches about the nature of Jesus Christ. Scriptural examples:
I could go on; these are just the main ones from the four Gospels, not even going into the Epistles. And there are still more not quoted above. Even the angel, in the Annunciation, declared that Jesus was to be "Son of God." At the age of 12, in the Temple, He said to Mary and Joseph that He had to be about His Father's business.
Again I ask, if Islam claims to join with us and the Jews as "people of the book" then just what the hell book are they talking about?
And what of the teaching of the Islam Way? There is no Trinity in God; Jesus is merely a prophet, and, guess what, there is a greater prophet. Right. So, the question remains unanswered: exactly what book is it that the Islam Way claims to be part of? It most definitely is not the Bible.
Please don't give me any crap about the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures being somehow corrupted or changed through the centuries. There is no literature more recognized, protected, duplicated, redundant, verified and backed up by history and archaeology in existence. Period. Many Eastern "ancient" religions, when old manuscripts are unearthed, show changes so radical over just a few centuries as to be nearly new and unrecognizable religions. Not so with Judaism and Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls VERIFIED and VALIDATED what had been written before; so it has always been.
The teachings within the Islam Way do not represent Christian theology and they do not represent Hebrew theology and they in no way reflect that they are "of the book." The God of the Islam Way does not even bear much resemblance to ours; the differences are so great that I don't see how it could be the same God. The beatific vision is unrecognizable. The God of Judeo-Christianity came to man, made covenants with man, walked with man, dwelt with man, was knowable to a degree. The God of the Islam way is supposed to be aloof and totally unknowable.
The Judeo-Christian model of Heaven is other-worldly and spiritual; the heavenly model of the Islam Way is so worldly as to be disgusting. In the Islam Way little children are taught early on that if they one day take a suicide bomb and use it to kill themselves and some old lady in a marketplace, they will immediately collect 72 virgins and begin screwing their little brains out for all eternity in Moslem Heaven. How's that for a beatific vision? That's a famous, major teaching in the Islam Way, and that teaching reveals not only an extraordinarily immature and vulgar religion, but a deceitful, impractical and particularly unmanly approach to the worldly practice of war.
Judaism and Christianity are deeply involved with the notion of our free will being involved in our salvation. Notions of sin and grace, vice and virtue, Heaven and Hell involve our free will choices. Islam takes choice out of the equation completely and replaces it with submission. Someone holds a sword over your head, and you submit to the demand, then you are saved. Alternatively, if someone murders an innocent non-Islamic person and dies in the act as a "martyr" then he gets to choose 70 other people who get a free pass into Heaven, regardless of any of their real life free will choices or behaviors.
It also shows that, in the Islam Way, there is no difference between this world and the next; everything - EVERYTHING - is of a worldly nature. Note the collection of virgins reserved for murderous martyrs. And note the messages from the most important teachers. Jesus spoke of Heavenly things, and of turning away from worldly things. What does Islam speak of?
Mohammed even felt compelled to give detailed instructions to his disciples on matters pertaining to the toilet, passing gas and so forth. To such a degree that it might appear to have been a fixation. The Hadith is held to be accurate recordings of sayings and customs of Mohammed, to be emulated by the faithful, as we see modern Moslems dressing and eating as he supposedly dressed and ate. And in the Hadith we find such things as Mohammed snorting water up his nose to blow out Satan every morning; Satan takes up residence there at night, you see. (Volume 4, number 516.) And Mohammed recommends a mixture of camel milk and camel piss for health's sake. (Volume 1, number 234.) So we must imagine that modern Moslems, in keeping with the Hadith as they do on dress and diet, snort and blow water out of their noses every morning, and imbibe of camel milk and camel piss on a regular basis.
And all these Islamic nations band together against Israel, with their huge armies, with all their wealth, and also with the enormous wealth behind them of the smiling, treacherous Saudi's, and the best they can come up with as a strategy and as a tactic and as a weapon of war is a suicide vest, in various sizes, including children and women. Israel once captured a whole ship full of them. That's the absolute best they can do, and the absolute best idea they can collectively come up with. These people are dumber than doorknobs.
Bin Ladin became a hero in the Islam Way because his disciples came up with ideas by which to murder vast numbers of innocents, rather than just a few in a market or on a street or at a checkpoint or on a bus. But it's the exact same strategy with a bigger vest. Death to innocent civilians, in the name of something or other. Allah, maybe, or perhaps in the name of the 72 virgins to be collected and screwed in tandem, or the 70 relatives and friends that get an absolutely free pass to Heaven regardless of how they live their lives.
They even show how they love to cut the heads off of innocents on television as a message of something or other, but the only message that comes across is the crystal clear image of the utter cruelty and barbarity of the Islam Way. They love to get terrified innocents on screen and make them cry and beg; they love to torture and slowly kill innocents for the cameras. The claim that Allah is merciful is complete bull crap; he is merciful only in the domain of Islam, he shows no mercy or even common civility in the domain of war, which happens to be where we live.
The whole goal - mark this well - is to expand the domain of Islam at the expense of the domain of the infidels. That is what the Islam Way is all about.
The whole issue of the "new revelation" after the end of the Apostolic era should have triggered something in my mind many years before the murderous events of 9/11/2001. There are some similarities to the cult of Mormonism that began here in America, in which a new "prophet" supposedly received new post-Apostolic era revelation, like Mohammed, supposedly from an angel. I don't think the Church ever condemned Mormonism, because it didn't split off from the Catholic Church, but from Protestantism. Since Smith was never a Catholic, he wasn't really condemnable as a Catholic heretic.
Joseph Smith, a boy with an over-active imagination, was playing at searching for precious minerals and jewels beneath the soil by peering at the ground through his magic peep-stones, see? And what he pretended to have found became the foundation of a new religion, branched off of Protestantism. To make a long story short, nothing that he "prophesied" came to pass, showing that he was a false prophet. The point is that neither Joseph Smith nor Mohammed were spoken to by any angel; or if they were spoken to by an angel, then it was the wrong kind of angel.
Mohammed's new religion was tied far more tightly to the previous moon-worshiping polytheistic paganism of the desert Arabs than it was to the Jews and the Christians. The first link Mohammed claimed with the Jews and the Christians defies all pre-existing Scripture and all existing archaeological evidence. The Islam Way claim that Abraham came to Mecca and built the shrine there for the worship of their silly moon rock and all the other idols they had there. Mohammed falsely brought Abraham to Mecca for the sole purpose of linking his new religion to Judaism and Christianity. There is no evidence that Abraham was ever in Mecca, and if he had been in Mecca, why would he build such a clearly pagan place of worship involving so many false idols?
Mohammed and his family worshiped there long before he ever invented the Islam Way. When he got the Islam Way rolling, he got rid of all the idols except the moon stone because of its extreme popularity. He wrapped it all up in a new story about Abraham finding it and bringing it to Mecca where he build the Kaaba, see? Yeah, right. While there is archaeological evidence of Abraham, none of it has anything to do with Mecca, and nothing in the Old Testament puts him anywhere near there or mentions the ancient and silly pagan rituals of the Kaaba.
Whatever Scripture and other writing that was being translated by someone out of Greek and Hebrew and relayed to Mohammed regarding Judaism and Christianity was incomplete and corrupted, because he got us all wrong, and he got the story wrong, and he even got the timing wrong. Arabic versions of the Bible would not be available until another three hundred years after the birth of the Islam Way. And Mohammed didn't even know about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD; he thought it still stood. Therefore, he had his phony "vision" in which he was supposed to have actually, physically gone and prayed at the Temple on the Mount, which he thought still existed. This day-dream or dreamed-up false story is the basis for the later building of the Dome of the Rock Mosque, which is now sitting blasphemously on the foundation of the original Temple.
Question: If this whole religion is such a sham, how is it that so many millions throughout the world follow it?
Answer: Living in the Islam Way means living in a completely closed system, with extremely myopic vision limited further by legally imposed blinders and lenses through which to view the real world.
I have elsewhere discussed the remarkable power of suggestion. A child raised in a tradition of ant worshipping will in all likelihood grow up to actively worship ants, and pass the tradition on to his children. In a similar manner, a child constantly told to "do your own thing" and "let your conscience be your guide" will grow up to be a hedonistic little savage. This illustrates the need for the child to receive a properly formed conscience through the constant attention and training of parents and God-parents. I submit that the Islam Way is so close-minded a system as to be completely prohibitive of all serious intellectual pursuit. It opposes critical thinking. It is not a religion of choice; you have no choice; you have no free will; you are saved only by submission.
You want to read a new book? Why? The perfect book has been written, and it is the Koran. You have no need to read any other book on Earth. You want to write a book? Why? The perfect book has already been written and the world has no need of any other book. You want to make a new law? Why? The perfect law has been enacted, and you can find it in the Koran. There is no need for any other law. You want to develop or invent something new? Why? The Koran shows you the way to perfection and to heavenly bliss; you and we and the world have no need for anything new.
That's what young scholars in the Islam Way learn in the massadras, which are the Islam Way version of religious seminaries, and which are, in truth, veritable kindergartens for suicide bombers. We may have our thinking Catholics, and thinking Protestants, and thinking Jews, but there can be no thinking Moslems, unless their thinking is limited to how to expand the House of Islam. Many of these schools have American flags on the wall beside the door, so that students entering and exiting may spit on or otherwise desecrate them, because the teachers of the Islam Way despise us so much. Some percentage of these students will go on to terrorist training camps, some percentage will become imams, some percentage will go somewhere with a suicide vest. All will be taught to hate us.
In the Islam Way, the only way to break out of the mold and do something different is to do that different thing in order to expand the domain of Islam at the expense of the domain of the infidels.
The differences between believing Christians and believing Jews are not trivial, and should not be glossed-over or ignored. The same thing can be said of the differences between Protestants and Catholics, and also between different kinds of Protestants. But we all share a common ethos that allows us to discuss and argue about these differences like gentlemen, or to not discuss them, as we wish. Yet, because of our common ethos, we can all still live together in the same society in relative peace and tranquility, with a high degree of civil and economic cooperation. Violations of the Judeo-Christian ethos are at once seen by all Judeo-Christian believers as exactly that: violations. We are an overwhelmingly Christian nation in which Jews are able to do very well for themselves and their families. But once you introduce Islam into American society, everything changes, because the Islam way operates from an absolutely foreign ethos that is not only incompatible with ours, but seeks to replace it.
Our Judeo-Christian tolerance is the direct path to our destruction.
We need to, not just limit, but completely stop, all Moslem immigration into this country. These people, for the most part, will not assimilate into the larger culture and become "Americans" like the rest of us. The Islam Way will not assimilate; to do so would mean to no longer be the Islam Way, and the territorial growth of the Islam Way is the main reason that most of them immigrate in the first place. And true assimilation is the key to peace and opportunity and progress. But it is not the path to the expansion of Islam, which is a requirement of the faith of Islam. In point of fact, the believing Moslem is called by his faith to forcibly assimilate us into Islam.
A graphic illustration of the importance of this point involves perhaps most of America's inner city blacks, a very large minority within a minority within a minority, which refer to themselves as The Disenfranchised. Although it may be shown that America has produced more black SELF-MADE millionaires than any other country or group of countries on Earth, The Disenfranchised, following the lead of the high visibility, very public, so-called "Black Leadership" in America, refuses to assimilate and suffers the consequences. They represent the only minority group in America that has not and apparently will not assimilate. Not all, but probably most, of America's social unrest and crime and drug and family break-down problems can be laid at the doorstep of this group and their leadership.
Careers and new career paths are even built upon maintaining the separateness of this group. Thomas Sowell's eloquent and scholarly works "Ethnic America: A History" and "Preferential Policies: An International Perspective" lay out the problems and the causes quite effectively. I submit that the only thing stopping the remainder of America's blacks from full assimilation and equal participation in the larger society is the firm belief that it cannot be done. And, of course, there are all of those who make their living by feeding that belief.
But, this assimilation problem is small potatoes compared with the expected assimilation of those following the Islam Way into any other culture at all. We can look at what's going on in current Eurabia, with whole neighborhoods declared Islamic, and therefore no-go zones for the local police officers; in France, Belgium, Holland, who knows where else. These governments were so suicidally stupid that they surrendered and gave up sovereign territory to neighborhoods of Moslems, just because they were asked to do so. Tourists who complain to the police that Moslem thugs burned their parked car in one of these areas of Paris are told "Sorry, we don't go there" and no action is taken. It's been going on like that and slowly increasing for years and years.Nobody outside of the immediate neighborhoods knew about it until the typical violence exploded from the usual hundred or so car burnings a night to thousands, with buildings and stores going into the blaze, and outside the strictly Moslem territories previously surrendered by the French government. And - very importantly - all of this has been religiously censored until now by the SLIMC1 and the rest of the world press. Why? Well, because it might detract from the establishment media message that the Islam Way is a way of peace, see?
Note well what's happening there, demographically. In France, the traditional French family is, if not dead, then mortally wounded. The average French man has a fraction of a child, born in or out of wedlock, which he may or may not be supporting. The French are not even reproducing themselves. The average Moslem living in France has four wives and twenty five sons, every single one of whom is on the dole, just like their father. Imagine that: the French are paying them to take over France.
When France and the rest of Eurabia finally surrenders the last of their territory in the name of peace and tolerance, then we will see the masses in France submitting and embracing their new religion, or dieing, or being enslaved. And all the French women, including the highest ranking, will be able to, quite voluntarily, of course, turn in their car keys, bag their heads and shut the hell up.
We have not only current history, but ancient history to prove the warlike nature of the Islam Way. Every single African country that is now Islamic was previously Christian. And they all became Islamic, not voluntarily, not by willing conversion, but by the sword. No exceptions. Look them up, one by one.
What about America's Nation Of Islam - are they not partners with the Islam Way? Of course not. There is no way that the Islam Way is going to accept the ridiculous holdings of the Black Moslems, whether the Messiah-ship of Elijah Mohammed or the "prophesy" of any of the current or any past leaders. You have heard the ancient saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." America's Nation of Islam is useful to the Islam Way only until we are conquered or dead and out of the way. At that point the heads of all who preach the blasphemous gospel of the Nation of Islam will roll in the streets in public executions.Interestingly, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy as applied by the Islam Way is seen by the SLIMC1 to be some kind of stroke of genius, but when applied by America, it is seen by the same SLIMC1 to be a sign of stupidity. Afghanistan is a good illustration. We trained and equipped the Mujahadin, including even Osama Bin Ladin, and worked with them to defeat the Russians. Therefore, we were stupid, preparing our enemies to fight us in the future, but Osama baby was brilliant, using us against not only the Russians but eventually against ourselves. Forget how we used them to defeat the Russians. Being in the mainstream media means always being able to find and apply an anti-American spin. The media might not be able to coherently define what they are for, but there is no question what they are quite consistently against. Us.
But there is a very real danger in allying yourself with the Islam way against the rest of the world, which is what the Islam Way is against. Do a thought experiment; you have seen the little bracelets and bumper stickers and T shirts that ask "What would Jesus do?" An excellent meditation before making a decision. Replace the Holy name of Jesus with that of Mohammed, and see how differently the decision might come out. Note the number of situations in which Mohammed would make use of his sword, and compare that to what the response of Jesus might have been in the same situation.
Look at the huge differences in actions and reactions of similar phenomena between cultures of Western Civilization and cultures living in the Islam Way. Remember our tax-dollar sponsored National Endowment for the Arts public exhibition of "Piss Christ," and the rendering of the Blessed Virgin covered in dung? Note well that nobody died over that, and the galleries were not burned down. Yet a Danish newspaper publishes an editorial cartoon showing Mohammed unfavorably, and the whole Middle East starts rioting, burning embassies and trying to kill other innocent people who had nothing to do with the event.
This morning I saw a Moslem woman on TV talking about the peacefulness of the Islam Way, and the need to emphasize the peaceful passages of the Koran over the murderous ones, etc., etc., etc. Her head was unveiled, she was wearing a fashionably short skirt, and the indications were that she was being interviewed in some Western culture, like here. I would like to see this same woman give this same report live from Saudi Arabia, where it appears that only the relatives of the King are exempted from the dress code. In fact, I’d like to see her merely step off a plane dressed like that in Saudi Arabia and walk in front of the police.
The Islam Way is not a way of tolerance or of peace, and "evangelizing" people into Islam does not involve convincing or converting them to make a free will decision nearly so much as it involves forcing people to submit to the Islam Way. Look to history; you will be hard pressed to find any nation or large community living in the Islam Way that did not originally get there due to application of brute force. The more dominant the Islamic population becomes, the more forceful and warlike it becomes in both expanding and strengthening itself. Look into the history of any and all Islamic nations and see if what I'm saying here is not true.
I offer a challenge to any journalist who claims that the Islam Way is a way of peace and tolerance. Take your pad and pencil into any mosque, anywhere in the world, but probably the safest at the moment will be one here in America. Once there, get everyone's attention. Make the following announcements:
Then sit down, take out your pad and pencil, and take careful
note of all the amazingly tolerant things that they say to you. Go
ahead. I'll wait right here.
There is probably not a major church in America that hasn't faced outright sacrilege in, on and around their buildings; all the perpetrators survived. Why should it be any different with Islam?
Handling of Islamic terrorists and enemy combatants needs to change to match precisely the treatment we give to Christian prisoners. Korans handled with white gloves? Excuse me? How the hell did they get this special treatment? Does anyone on Earth, including us, treat Christians with anywhere near that level of super-sensitivity?
The level at which we need to protect ourselves from the Islam Way may go so far as to require an actual constitutional amendment to get it done. If so, we need to get started on it now, because the Islam Way is marching, and we are standing still. Stopping all immigration from Islamic lands and of anyone professing to walk in the Islam Way is just the beginning. We've got a serious problem with the ones that are here now.
First and foremost, we need to get all who walk in the Islam Way out of all of the armed forces, and to prohibit Moslems from entry into military service. As destructive to unit cohesion as homosexuality is, it doesn't even compare to having a member of the unit who may become the enemy of the unit at any time.
We need to rigidly enforce bigamy laws with no exceptions granted to the Islam Way. If we can make it illegal even for the Mormons, we can make it illegal for everyone, as we should, despite periodic requests and pleadings from various Islamic communities. We should do everything to discourage and nothing to encourage the religion of Islam. This is something everyone in the Islam Way will understand immediately, because it is exactly the same sort of treatment they give to every other religion in Islamic lands. So they should have no real problem with it, being as common and understandable as it is.
That means, a legal prohibition on the building of any new mosque anywhere in America. It means a prohibition on the repair, restore, rehabilitation, upgrade or expansion on any existing mosque anywhere in America.
It also means a special annual tax to be levied against all who profess to walk in the Islam Way, to be allowed to remain here in America. All who refuse to pay the tax should be expelled from the country. If they are citizens of another country, they should be deported to it. If they are American citizens, they should have their citizenship revoked and be banished, to any country of their choice that will have them, with no option of ever returning.
Moslems convicted of any crime in America should similarly be banished after they've served their time.
Again, if you look at any Islamic country, such as our supposedly great ally, Saudi Arabia, you will see that these new rules I am proposing are vastly milder than the ones in force there. All who walk in the Islam Way will understand these rules at once; they will look quite familiar. It is only in Christian lands - perhaps the only one of which that is left is America - where on first glance they will appear to be over the top and unacceptable.
The way to win abroad is probably precisely the way President Bush is waging the war on terrorism. The way to win at home is to fight fire with fire.
Who do you think is the most likely to win here?
The contest is between the most tolerant, and the most ruthless.
Think about it.
Some good material on the subject:
Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest-Growing Faith; Robert Spencer; Encounter Books.
The Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, theology, Impact on the World; Serge Trifkovic; Regina Orthodox Press.
The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion; Robert Morey; Harvest House.
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Thu Dec 10 04:25:18 2009
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org City
You seem to be very angry, very critical and very ignorant.
You seem to have collated all this information from these three sources, Robert Morey - A hatred filled pro-American anti-Islamisist who is extremely bias and is criticized by non-Muslims as being an extremist in his own right, Robert Spencer - Who runs his own ministry with a suspicious reputation and whose writings are invalid, citing people who state that he manipulates their writing for his own Agenda, his degrees in the feild of studying Islam have also been highly questioned as legitimate and finally Serge Trifkovic who asserts that Medieval practices of violence must mean that Islam is inherently evil and destructive.
You obviously have some serious issues in relation to America's foreign policy history. The US has funded undemocratic coups and wars in a bid to keep its oligarchy content, since the beginning of the 19 century.
The Iraq War should not have happened, here is why No WMDs, as proven by UN who were readily assisted by Iraqis, and whom had every piece of intelligence in the world No links to Al-Quada, as proven by a CIA report that was given to the president The Americans re-instituted Saddam after the first Gulf War, so you cant say he was the reason.
Now for your question as to why Muslims were not so, well at least those in the Middle East, because the rest were very shocked, did not really care for 9 11. The reason why Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other minorities around the world were rejoicing was because of the mistreatment and ridiculous amount of past mistreatment and exploitation in their countries.
When 9 11 happened I was shocked and appalled, similarly were my Muslim friends. However after the Iraq War of 2003, I felt that America had actually earned 911 or at least some kind of punishment similar to it far its ignorance and sense of self-pity.
The problem with Americans is that, well not all - just conservatives like you, is that you think everyone is naturally as well resourced and situated as yourselves. You do not acknowledge the fact that companies that make your clothes or provide your food and oil suck these people of a decent life.
Islam itself has nothing to do with the threat to America. The threat to America is crazy Americans such as yourself who ignorantly blame minorities for such incidents.
Muslims were in America plenty of years before this occurred and no one was analyzing them as dissent filled individuals.
They are the knew scape goat. Don’t say the your ignorance and hatred disgust me. The radicalization of minorities occurs because more powerful nations such as the US blame them for crimes that they committed or helped in creating. I pray to God that you can see the hypocritical insanity that you have embedded in yourself because it will only exacerbate the problems of the world such as terrorism and economic and cultural imperialism.
Date: Thu Dec 10 22:51:26 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
My my. You seem to have your panties in a knot.
First, this is the fourth comment of yours I’ve received today, and I wish you would spend a buck or two and get yourself a word processor that has a spell checker. Just about every sentence has a grossly miss-spelled word, and it gets tiresome editing this crap to make it legible for other readers, before I can even try to make sense out of it myself.The Leftist line that “Imperialist” America funds undemocratic (meaning opposing Marxist revolutionary) foreign efforts is just that – a Leftist line of a typical MEJTML14 . America holds no empire. America has helped and should help others who’s liberty is threatened by Marxist revolution or takeover. If not us, then who? We rule no place, not even in America. At least until Obama, Americans are and have been represented, not ruled, and we rule no other land. That is what Marxists do.
And Moslems. What makes you think I or any of my fellow conservatives blame minorities for anything? Islam did 9/11, and Islam is not any minority. It’s a huge religion, almost as big as Catholicism itself. Actually, it’s a false religion; it’s an ideology much like Marxism, seeking ultimate domination of the world.
The problem confronting the sovereignty of America – and, incidentally, the sovereignty of Australia – is that these dangerous ideologies are no longer contained within any particular national borders. That makes them much more difficult to fight militarily. We are in a war of ideas, and unfortunately, as you so often prove with your comments, there are many who are not adequately equipped to fight any war of ideas.
The real war against Marxism will be won only one mind at a time. The religious war, fought best from the Catholic position, will only be won one soul at a time. Unfortunately, until ultimate victory, there will be much bad news.
Free will is involved in civil liberty, and it is involved in salvation. Both Marxism and Islam seek to eliminate free will; both demand submission; neither will compromise.
I know you want to be a good little dependent of the government, Matt. But I will never surrender my independence. That’s the real difference between us.
Date: Mon Aug 23 19:34:38 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Your post does not appear here because I won’t allow that kind of hate-filled anti-Semitic garbage on this Website. Nor will I allow the invocation of God’s name as you have invoked it. You would be well advised to read and try to comprehend the note explaining the rules of language, civility and logic that are required for posts on this Website.
You have no real argument on which to stand. This will not become a platform for any type of propaganda, nor will it engage in trading insults. I am a tolerant man, but I will not tolerate absolute intolerance. We are a tolerant nation, but we will not tolerate absolute intolerance of ourselves or of our law. Take your rant elsewhere; there are plenty of other Websites out there that are more acclimatized to the gutter you live in.
Date: Fri Sep 03 21:01:33 2010
As a Mormon, I take strong exception to your description of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Since you do not consider us even to be Christians, I will understand if you do not even post this letter, because it is doubtful that you would even care to publicly argue with a Mormon “heretic”. I am not prepared to defend Islam, but I find it interesting that you lump the Church of LDS together with Islam and then testify with certitude to something you cannot possibly know with certainty. Specifically, you testify that both religions are either frauds or inspired by fallen angels. Where is your evidence for that claim?John
Date: Sat Sep 04 07:06:44 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
The fact that I do not consider you to be Christian does not mean that I do not consider you to be American. We still agree on ethos and morality, and that binds us to a common sense of right versus wrong. Not so with Islam, which is alien to our ethos, and which stands opposed to our very Constitution.
I am willing to participate in reasoned argument with a Mormon heretic like you if you are willing to participate in reasoned argument with a damned, hell-bound Papist like me; just don’t be thin-skinned about it.
My evidence that LDS is either a fraud or inspired by an evil being is wrapped up in the fact that it is a new Gospel, presented after the closing of the Apostolic era of revelation. It therefore cannot be true. The new Gospels of Luther, Calvin, etc., were condemned by the Council of Trent. The Mormon Church did not split off from the Church, but from previously condemned Protestantism. Joseph Smith was never a Catholic, so I don’t think the Church ever addressed Mormonism in anything official, from the top.
I believe in God, and in angels and demons. Joseph Smith and Mohammed claimed to have been spoken to by angels. If either of them spoke the truth, then the angels were of the fallen variety.
Bottom line, you don’t get to change the Christian Gospel message, or to create a new Gospel message. I submit that the Book of Mormon is a new gospel, and thus, as any sort of Christian Gospel, it is patently false. This position is backed up by Galatians, and by the closing words of Revelation, the last words in the whole Bible.
Date: Sat Sep 04 08:50:13 2010
How do you treat of others like Hindu and Buddha?
Date: Sat Sep 04 09:42:57 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
With civil welcome and theological neutrality. Hindu and Buddhist faiths, to my knowledge, seek to conquer no one, to harm no one, nor do they seek to force anyone to do anything. So long as they recognize and agree to live within American law, which is based upon Judeo-Christian morality, they should always be as welcome here as is anyone else.
Only Marxism and Islam openly and directly oppose America’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and other civil laws. Atheism is less hostile to America but dangerous to civilized men, because atheism has no morality and might turn to anything at all as a social guide. Legally, Marxists, Moslems and atheists are allowed free range here. I believe Marxism and Islam should be banned, but at the moment, that’s just my personal opinion and not the law of the land. I pray to see the law changed in that regard.
Date: Sat Sep 04 10:49:34 2010
You treat John the Mormon as a heretic, then you treat Raviraj the Hindu or Buddhist with theological neutrality?
Hmmm … Something here does not compute.
Date: Sat Sep 04 11:33:14 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Well … you got me.
My own words as written condemn me. However, believe it or not, the sentence describing John as a Mormon heretic was hyperbolic rhetoric intended to draw John into deeper dialogue. I no more believe that John is a heretic than that I am a damned and bound-for-hell Papist.
Originators of condemned Christian doctrines are heretics, but that does not mean that all of their followers were or are heretics. Luther was a heretic, but all Lutherans are not heretics. Joseph Smith was a heretic, but all Mormons are not heretics. Anyone who objectively seeks God by the light he has been given, even within the constraints of his culture, is no heretic, but a seeker.
The theological neutrality stance was more wrong, because it may give the impression of equality of faiths, which would be wrong. There is only one Way. However, Hindus, Buddhists and others who do not impose anything on others should be free to evangelize and should always be made welcome in America.
Thanks for keeping me honest. That’s 1 for you.
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:12:15 2012
I hate to make a comment that might upset you, especially considering how much I enjoyed other posts I have read on this website, but I feel I must, as it is a tremendous disservice pitting Islam against Christianity. I find it interesting how you can be so insightful on the malarky freudian marxist idealogy that the media pushes, yet fall so easily for their tricks of divide and conquer. That being said, I am no fan of most middle eastern counties in terms of wanting to live there, but I respect them. You mention seeing muslims celebrating after 9/11, just curious as to how you knew they were followers of Islam. Did you ask them? Secondly I must ask what you mean when you say "Jew", and when you say Judeo-christian? Do you mean historical jew, like a palistinian, or a self styled modern day jew or "Talmudic Jew" ? Or are we talking about a racial group that modern day anthropologists would call Turko-Finns(priestly class in Israel)? Your statement "Note well that countries such as Turkey that have representative Democracy may not be considered to be true Islamic countries, an Islamic majority population notwithstanding." - Saying a country has majority muslims and then saying it has democracy but is not muslim is kind of like double-negative is it not? When you wrote "The Jews took it over, lost it, returned to it, were ruled by the Greeks for a time, then by the Romans, and then they gave birth to Christianity." you must be refering to palistinians because modern day self styled jews for the most part are not semetic are not decendants of Shem and are not of the religion of the Old testament, but the Talmud. Nowhere in the Old or New testament will you find the jews. Jew a word which appeared in 1775. You also mention jews escaping hitler . . I'm almost certain that when you wrote "jews" you did not mean "priestly class racial jews". I could go on pointing out the clear evidence pointing towards Israels involvement in 9/11 including the 6,000 jews who worked in the trade center towers that by chance were lucky enough to not show up for work that day, what a coincedence. In simple terms , here in Canada for example on television villifying christianity and Jesus as well as protesting against christianity is not only condoned but in many cases encouraged, yet oversly if 1 person says something that could be considered mean-spirited or critical of israel and its policies they are immediatly called a racist and a anti-semite, and then shown the door-of-no-return. Israel also requires that all jews who marry prisestly class jews must be 100% racially jewish, not 1/1000 impurity is allowed(unlike the Nazi SS who at first required you prove 8 generations back). To answer your question "Does any Jew living in present day Israel have a right to continue to live?" Thes answer is YES ........but not in Palestine, but of course that all depends on your definition of jew -which as I have found, varies from person to person, making it an almost useless word, as it carries no meaning/or atleast extremely varied meanings. The word has become synonymous with "Mafia", as anyone can say they are part of it, but may not be accepted into it. Aside from our disagreements as to the perpetrators of 9/11 I still love how you pick apart the arguements of marixst(communists) and backers of freud's fraud. WELL after all this heresy I better buy some indulgences from the local talmudic church, I hear they gots a sale on. Although in some peoples opinions would be better spent on $1,066,450 cruise missiles for the country that has no standing army, navy , airforce, running water, electricity, and few maintained roads.(Afghanistan). I mean honestly, who are people gullible enough to go after next......uncontacted amazonian tribes?(who do not have "the wheel") As far as non-european immigration(e.g. arab muslim), I hate it, but recognise that they are not the ones to blame, but instead our own leaders who let them in(at a rate of a quarter million/year[and thats doesn't include illegal]) Say what you want about Islam or Christianity but say somthing negative about the jews and Uh-OH hate crime charges might be on the way friend. I think modern day Talmudic Judaism is much more of a threat to free will then Marxism or Islam. (question the Holohoax/6 million figure publicly and you shall find out) Divide and Conquer. My final question for YOU : Was Jesus a Jew? I restlessly await your answer.
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:58:45 2012
I knew this website was too good to be true, you love the people who rule over my county and the United States with an iron talmudic fist - Modern Day Jews. You have no evidence Iran is preparing to wipe out Israel. If Israel is allowed to conquest Palestine then why is Egypt ect then not aloud to conquest nodern day israel? Why do they deserve such victim status ? If i kicked you off your land (by conquest) and decided it belonged to me, by your logic if you got upset with me and attakced - I'd be in the right and you would be in the wrong. How you can understand marxism and freud but not this ....is behond me.
Date: Fri Jan 20 HH:MM:SS 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
I normally take the time and effort pre-edit posts to correct minor errors in spelling and grammar, but these are not minor, nor are they few, and I am not about to do a complete rewrite of your two posts for you. Still, I think I get the gist of what you are trying to communicate. You are seeing conspiratorial Jews hiding under beds in America and in Canada. Your giant Jewish conspiracy theory is just plain nuttiness. (Sorry; one of my Jewish iron-fisted rulers made me say that. Shhh!)
To me, the word Jew is a religious and philosophical description more than a racial one. Who cares about race? If a man is not religiously a Jew, then he is not a Jew. I do not think of Karl Marx as a Jew; that’s the last way I think of him. Apparently that is not the way the Marxist Adolph Hitler thought of him either. Judeo-Christian is a term used to describe Western culture morality and ethos. See the Judeo-Christian Ethos page for a description. It tries to describe the guiding ethos of Western Civilization.
If you like the way I picked apart Marxism in the Refuting Marx, perhaps you will like the way I picked apart Islam in the Refuting Mohammed page. You might also look at the new Definition of Islam page.
Of course, Jesus Christ was a Jew. He had to be. So was the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was a Jew of the house of David. All the Apostles were Jews, and the Evangelists – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Jews. (Luke was a Greek – a Gentile – who was religiously a Jew.) I think I talked about this on one or another of the Catholic pages on this site.
I don’t see why that was such an important question. Christianity was prophesied and born of Judaism; perhaps you didn’t know that.
My statement that Israel belongs to the Jews by right of conquest stands; there are other reasons, but that is the final one. Jordanians (there was no nation of Palestine) and surrounding Arabs who tried to drive them out failed, repeatedly. Israel belongs to the Israelis by right of conquest. Anyone who doesn’t like it can lump it.
PS: Israel is Israeli by right of conquest in the same manner that Russia is Russian by right of conquest, India is Indian by right of conquest, Britain is British by right of conquest, Canada is Canadian by right of conquest, and America is American by right of conquest. You cannot name a nation that is not what it is by right of conquest. What’s the problem?
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Wed Sep 10 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Get in the fight! Engage the Enemy!
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
All Published Articles
By Publication Date
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
The Purpose of this grouping of links is to organize articles exposing the fraud of Islam as a religion and Mohammed as a prophet.
The Islam Pages
With war declared on the whole non-Islamic world in the year 622 A.D., no one should have been surprised at Osama Bin Laden's declaration of war in 1966. Mohammed himself declared war on us long before we existed as a nation. To find the true source of the "radicalization" of peaceful Moslems into Jihadism, all you have to do is read the Koran. It's all right there, and there is nothing radical about it.
The Islam Pages: Setting the record straight for the non-Islamic world. The Islam Pages describe the war declared upon us all by Mohammed after the Hijrah in 622 AD.
"Civilized" Islamic Nations versus the True Islamic Religion. When Politics drives Religion in Islamic Nations, the whole world is safer; when Religion drives Politics in Islamic Nations, the whole world is menaced.
On the necessity of using Barbarian Allies against the worst Barbarians. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Moslem nations so fear ISIS that they will ally with despised America and Israel against it. But never forget that Barbarian Allies are still Barbarians, at the core.
Civilized Moslems: Ataturk's Turkey and the Shah's Iran had them. Once, Civilized Moslems, Educated Women and Peaceful, Attractive, Beautiful Cities predominated in lands where now we see little other than Typical Islamic Barbarity.
The Islamic Connection between ISIS, Random Terrorism and Global Jihad. It is the unseen Islamic Connection that is conquering Western Civilization: The Known Terrorist Groups, Native Born Convert Terrorists, Global Jihadists, etc. are all Moslems who read the same Koran.
The sole path to Islamic Heaven is to die a martyr in performance of Jihad. That's it. Islam assures no one else of salvation. Male martyrs get a permanent erection; female martyrs get a permanently erect penis. No kidding.
The Looming Islamic War: Sunni, ISIS, Shia, Kurds, Russia, Israel, USA? Sunni nations allying with Israel against ISIS? Excuse me? Shia nations allying with Russia? Who's on First here?
The Source of Radical Islamic Terrorism? Mohammed and the Koran. Radical Marxist Terrorism comes out of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Similarly, Radical Islamic Terrorism comes right straight out of the Koran.
Should we treat Islam differently than other religions? If not, why not? Doesn't Islam treat the whole non-Islamic world differently than it treats Islam?
Refuting Mohammed and his ideology of conquest masquerading as a religion. Here we refute Mohammed, who should be seen as little more than a popular fraud among pagans.
The "Palestinian Problem" is just an Evil Mask; it's really an "Islam Problem". There was no state or nation of Palestine when modern Israel was born. It was Islam, not Palestine, that attacked Israel in 1948.
The Truth about Islam, finally, in a homily at Mass. You never hear the unvarnished truth about Islam, or other evils, from Catholic clerics. Maybe that's finally changing.
American survival itself depends on getting Islam out of America. Cult forms Culture; Islam forcibly attacks all non-Islamic cultures. American national existence depends upon getting Islam out.
Recognizing, at last, the Islamic Declaration of War on Human Civilization. Congress should Recognize the long existing Islamic Declaration of War, and Declare War against ISIS and all other active Islamic Jihad organizations.
The common link between Paris, San Bernardino, 9/11, etc.: Islamic Jihad. It was common, ordinary, every day Jihad. No one was radicalized; nothing was hijacked; no one went berserk.
The argument within Islam, and about Islam, regarding the true nature of Islam. The true nature of Islam: Ron Paul, King Saud, Ali Khamenei, Comrade Obama, all have their versions.
The French Islamophobia: Was it real? Or is Islam really something to be feared? If the French Islamophobia turns out to have been warranted, what about ours?
What would War on Islam look like? Would victory even be possible? With what successful overall strategy could we wage war on an ideology?
Definition of Islam: Ideology of Military Conquest Masquerading as a Religion. The Definition of Islam describes the “Convert, Submit or Die” War Strategy of Mohammed.
The Islam Way Versus The Way of the Lord, and the way of Western Culture. The Islam Way stands at loggerheads with the moral, social and civil codes historically common to Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization.
How Orthodox Mainstream Islam Opposes America, and all other National Existence. Islam's Lesser Jihad seeks to (1) Convert All, or (2) Subjugate All, or (3) Kill All. Islam opposes America and American national existence.
The hard, cold, truth about the murderous nature of the religion of Islam. Islam is a religion of Peace? Excuse me? If that's true, then you must agree that Islam has a very funny way of showing it.
OK, the strictly Koranic Islamic teaching on infidels isn't TOTALLY murderous. A changing view on the Islamic teaching on infidels, and other important issues this political election season.
The Islamic Theocracy menace Vs. the U.S. Constitution First Amendment. How to attack the expanding Islamic Theocracy here while remaining true to the Constitution: SANE may have found the way.
Could we, and should we, outlaw Islamic Sharia in the US? Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; but what of a "religious law" legal system that has a core goal of the destruction of our Constitution itself?
Can we outlaw Islam in the USA and still be a free thinking society? I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Again, it's Israel up against what appears to be the whole pea-picking world. Weak lip-service and pretty speeches aside, America is Israel's only real ally. And, as war is imposed upon her again, even many Americans are lukewarm in their support. Why?
The latest Israeli conflict is little different from all the previous ones. The first Israeli conflict with her neighbors, and every one since then, has been a simple matter of self defense.
Faith And Reason Vs. Islam: A Pontiff on faith and reason again, and again, etc. It is and has always been faith and reason vs. Islam; Islam is unreasonable, it's faith equals submission, and it is by nature violent and war-oriented.I
slam is the enemy; the non-Islamic world just doesn’t know it yet. I keep saying that Islam is the enemy here, and you keep not wanting to hear it. But it's true.
The Ground Zero Mosque. The ground zero mosque is an Islamic slap in the face of all 9/11 victims.
Tolerating intolerance of America is what Americans are being trained to do. In tolerating intolerance of themselves some Americans think they are proving something or other.
More concessions to the Palestinians? Do concessions run on a one way street? Israel is called to make more concessions to the Palestinians. It is never the other way round.
On Evil and Nonsense: Look closely at Nonsense, and find Evil at its root. Evil and Nonsense: deny evil and you deny right vs. wrong; which is to deny common sense, which is to invoke nonsense.
Three fatal oversights of the top conservative cognizanti: Glenn, Rush and Sean. Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity are on the right track, but just nibbling around the edges of who the enemy is.
n support of American Nationalism and American Patriotism. American Nationalism and American Patriotism have been demonized long enough.
Argument opposing Sharia law as brutal, oppressive and murderous. Opposing Sharia Law means opposing brutal domination, wife beating, child abuse and even bloody murder.
Who "radicalized" the Boston Marathon Bomber brothers? It's the Koran, Stupid. Yes, it's the Koran, stupid, and it's mainstream Islam, and there's nothing radical about either of them.
Fair warning: Beware of the Moslem Liars holding olive branches and smiling. If you have Moslem friends, you need to learn about the religious Moslem Liars
War Begets War: It's About Islam; It Always Was. Undoing Islamic Lies of "Peaceful" Moslem Propagandizers.
Rethinking War on Islam: War on "parts" of Islam, or, Unlimited War. Rethinking War on Islam may mean a perpetual state of war, for Islam's evil cannot be separated out.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the