Nationhood, Manhood, & Refugees
One doesn’t need to think too deeply to reason out some of the fundamental characteristics that define nationhood. A nation requires a name and a territory drawn by borders. A nation has a right to defend itself and its borders. A nation has the right to regulate currency, trade, and immigration of foreign nationals. The regulation of immigration ought to be exercised according to the nation’s enlightened self-interest. The “enlightened” aspect of self-interest involves mercy, consideration of long-term impact, and (in a democracy) the will of the people. No foreign national has a right, constitutional, moral, or otherwise, to enter the USA without our consent.
I have seen again and again the newsreel coverage of “Syrian” refugees landing on the Greek Isle of Lesbos and making their way on foot, by bus, and by train into Western Europe. I write “Syrian” in quotes given the improbability that all of the multitude of refugees are from war-torn Syria. In watching the news coverage I find myself astounded by the proportion of men of military age among the throngs. When a man claims a home and a homeland, he will stand and fight to protect either. If he needs first to escort a family to safety, a man is compelled to return prepared to regain what was lost, even at risk of his own life. Although the numbers are disputed, Jordan alone claims to have received more than a million Syrian refugees. Why no army has been cobbled together from this population is a mystery to me. Why the military-age refugees flooding Europe would rather run than fight is likewise a mystery, unless: (a) they are actually run-of-the-mill economic migrants; (b) their intent is to permanently escape the chaos and insecurities of the moslem world; or (c) their intent is to export that chaos into an unwitting Europe.
Outgoing Louisiana governor and erstwhile Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal coined the observation that “Immigration without assimilation is invasion.” In Part Two I quoted King (of Jordan) Abdullah II to the effect that the current turmoil is a “War within Islam.” The fact that moslems born in Europe or in the USA would murder their countrymen in the name of Islam suggests to me an incomplete assimilation. To compound the “War within Islam” by welcoming more and more moslems seems to me contrary to any Western nation’s enlightened self-interest.
In his oval office address of December 6, 2015 President Obama urged that there be “no religious test” for entry to the USA. Given that Islam has lost its way, I have to disagree with the President. The USA should restrict moslem immigration and should start now to address the issue in Congress rather than trusting the executive branch.
The Trouble with Islam
You may ask how can I justify discriminatory treatment of would-be moslem immigrants. Consider the history of religious war within the USA…What religious war in the USA? You probably can’t think of any because there have been no actual religious wars in our history. The closest we came to religious war was in 1844 when Mormons (under the leadership of Joseph Smith) wore out their welcome in Nauvoo, Illinois, embraced polygamy, and were driven out. Joseph Smith was among the fatalities. Some may add to the list of religious skirmishes in the USA the 1993 killings of “Branch Davidians” near Waco, Texas. More than 80 Branch Davidians were killed, courtesy of our federal government, first by gunfire and then by incineration. However one populates the list of religious skirmishes in the USA, the list is short.
Looking at Europe, there stands the holocaust as perhaps the penultimate religious war (this side of Armageddon). Still, the holocaust is not sufficiently described as only a religious war. Nazi Germany probably killed more Russians than European jews and was brutal as well toward Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, and others. If all the jews of Europe suddenly converted to Christianity (say in 1938), would that have prevented the holocaust? No, Hitler would not have stopped in that there were issues at play other than religious faith. The remorse of Christian Europe over the holocaust led to the post-WW II Partition of Palestine and to the birth of the modern State of Israel.
Looking at the moslem world one sees ongoing religious bloodletting with no sign of a resolution nor any sign of remorse. By far most victims of the (Sunni) Islamic State have been moslems, among them Iraqi Shiites and Kurds. Once every few years (including 2015) pilgrimage season in Mecca, Saudi Arabia features hundreds of deaths by trampling and suffocation in stampedes of the faithful. There is something very, very wrong in Islam, and it seems to be getting be getting worse or at least closer to home.
I am rarely inclined toward judging a religion and its adherents. When I do so, I will consider both theology and behavior with greater weight on behavior. Looking at Christian Old Testament theology one may find an uncritical acceptance of slavery and polygamy. One may find as much tolerance of murder as there is condemnation of it. One may find as much tolerance of adultery as there is condemnation of it. One may find the approval of war, religious war, and even genocide. One may find disturbingly harsh punishments, such as being put to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath. One may find divine approval (for example) of the slaughter of the Midianites for the offense of offering their religion to the Israelites. Modern Christianity has come a long way, and rightly so, in distancing itself from the dark side of Old Testament theology. That distancing comes in part from the teachings of Jesus and in part from civilization’s evolving sense of decency.
Applying the same analysis of theology and behavior to Islam, the result is somewhat different. Jihad remains a pillar of the faith. To Christians the phrase “God is great” is either general praise of the Almighty or the opening of a child’s mealtime prayer of thanksgiving. To moslems the phrase “God is great” (“Allah akbar” or “Allahu akbar”) is a battle cry uttered just before the killing starts. Infidels (like me) remain objects of scorn and contempt. Sharia law may still be enforced in brutal fashion. I suggest that Islam is experiencing its own “Dark Ages.”
Here are some other facts demonstrating the trouble with modern Islam. In the name of Islam the Taliban in Pakistan left young Malala Yousafzai for dead after shooting her in the head for daring to attend school. The Taliban in Afghanistan have destroyed irreplaceable monumental statuary of the ancient world for being “unIslamic.” The “Islamic State” in Syria has likewise laid waste to ancient architecture that is deemed “unIslamic.”
It is fair to ask whether “moderate” moslems in the USA have renounced Jihad and the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. In between the Paris and San Bernardino massacres I heard reports of an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd with a moslem apologist. This apologist responded to the suggestion that moslems be asked whether they have disavowed Jihad. She asked whether it was “just” to even ask such a question. Of course it’s “just” to ask the question when Jihad is a pillar of the faith. More recently I heard another (female) moslem apologist on PBS asserting that “anti-moslem sentiment” is stirred by the rhetoric of presidential politics. I beg to differ. Anti-moslem sentiment is stirred by mass murder in the name of Islam. It also appears now (from published accounts) that Syed Farook had been “radicalized” for some substantial time before his venture into Jihad, such that family members must have known of his inclinations. Still, no one warned authorities about the homicidal danger posed by Mr. Farook.
Following the San Bernardino massacre I heard once more an old explanation (attributed to “CAIR”) that the USA is to blame for Jihadi attacks because U.S. foreign policy and military actions radicalize otherwise peaceful moslems. Though the explanation and its timing strike me as offensive, I will assume here the truth of the assertion that U.S. foreign policy and military actions radicalize moslems. Here lies the resulting quandary: (a) no unified foreign policy by the USA would satisfy all moslems; and (b) the USA isn’t likely to change its foreign policy or military actions to appease Islamic terrorists. Accordingly, the favorite explanation or excuse of domestic moslems for the atrocities of their brethren is actually a rational prediction of more radicals and more attacks in the future.
Is it fair to hold the moslem community accountable for the atrocities of a few? It isn’t so much blame that I suggest but caution or communal self-defense. Not all moslems were 9/11 hijackers, but all the 9/11 hijackers were moslems. If infidels (like me) have the right to defend ourselves, the shield that we use must be broader than the point of the spear that threatens us. It might be unfair to blame all moslems for the atrocities of a few, but it is not unfair to guard against all moslems, at least those who have not openly disavowed Jihad and joined the fight against Islamic terrorism.
Tolerance of the Intolerant?
I acknowledge our noble tradition of religious tolerance in the USA. Would we betray that core value by restricting moslem immigration? If the goal is religious tolerance, it is counterproductive to accommodate the least tolerant religion of Islam. For instance, how many Christian churches stand in Saudi Arabia to serve the (mostly foreign) Christian population? Last I heard there were none. How many mosques are there in the USA? As many as they care to build. Recently I read of a well-known poet in Saudi Arabia who dared renounce Islam. He has been sentenced to death for his crime pursuant to Sharia law.
Do you recall the novelist Salman Rushdie? For years he was the subject of a fatwah for his literary blasphemies against Islam. A fatwah in this context is a death warrant of sorts issued by a moslem Ayatollah or Mufti to obligate all good moslems to kill the subject on sight. Rushdie survived his fatwah after years spent in seclusion. Then there was the Danish illustrator who dared draw a likeness of Mohammed. He became a fatwah target and was attacked (but not quite killed) by an axe-wielding Somali. Illustrators at France’s Charlie Hebdo satire magazine were less fortunate. To accommodate moslem immigration into the USA is to import religious intolerance, contrary to our core values.
The 28th Amendment
While the flow of moslem immigration can and should be staunched by Congress, there are other appropriate and necessary measures that would offend the First Amendment’s “free practice” (of religion) clause. The remedy is to adopt a 28th Amendment to the Constitution according to the procedure set out in Article V. Before being sent from Congress to the states for ratification, a proposed Amendment must pass both Houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities. Such action is unlikely in the present Congress. The need of a 28th Amendment will likely be more apparent when the next Congress convenes in January of 2017. If Congress lacks the will to act, a “Convention for proposing Amendments” may be prompted by the “Application” of the Legislatures of 34 states.
By the time a 28th Amendment is adopted it will be more clear that Islam in America is more bane than benefit. It will also be more clear that Islam distinguishes itself from other World Religions by its intolerance and its brutality. The remedy, then, is for the 28th Amendment to remove Islam as a religion protected by the First Amendment. Any laws respecting Islam would be subject to a low level of Constitutional scrutiny. Presumably, mosques would be subject to real estate taxes while donations to Islamic causes would no longer be deductible from income taxation. Moreover, mosques would be subject to local zoning laws and subject to civil forfeiture for criminal activity.
To moslem-Americans who salute the flag and cherish their citizenship, I say thank you for your contributions and ask you to understand the necessity of stopping the importation of Islamic conflict. My proposal would not deprive any moslem-American of the opportunity to peacefully follow his faith. Under a 28th Amendment as outlined moslems in America would continue to enjoy greater religious freedom than that afforded to Christians in moslem nations.
Have you ever heard of Baha’i? Founded in the 19th Century in Persia (now Iran), Baha’i may be described as a syncretic faith drawing from Islam. The Baha’i faith is possibly the most tolerant and theologically inclusive religion on the planet, and it came from Persia. I have great respect for Baha’i and its adherents. The 28th Amendment would not modify the protected status of Baha’i in the USA. Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, among other faiths, would retain their recognized status as protected faiths under the 28th Amendment.
Leave a Reply