Proposals to Ban Muslim Immigration: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on proposals to ban Muslim immigration. The question was:

Does the lack of respect for rights among some Muslim immigrants justify banning all Muslim immigrants? Sometimes, I hear people say that immigrants from Muslim countries are so illiberal (in the classical sense) that they ought to banned from entering the United States and Western Europe. The anti-immigrationists say that when people from Muslim countries are allowed to reside in the West, such immigrants remain committed to political Islam, honor-kill their own daughters, rape native-born women, and plot to impose sharia law on the West through "stealth jihad." Is the illiberalism of some (or even many) Muslim immigrants grounds for limiting immigration from Muslim countries? What is the proper response to this problem?

My Answer, In Brief: Muslims are a diverse group of people, just like every other immigrant group. They are not a unique or special threat to the rights of Americans. Terrorists and criminals should be excluded when possible – and prosecuted if they commit crimes in the United States.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 23:10
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Conservatism, Crime, Discrimination, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Islam, Justice, Law, Politics, Religion, Security, Terrorism

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Proper Immigration Policy
• Islam in the United States
• Philosophy in Action: Positive Change in Islam
• Wikipedia: No True Scotman Fallacy
• The Objective Standard: Immigration and Individual Rights by Craig Biddle
• GOP Daily Dose: Muslim Booted From Hair School For Refusing To Remove Her Hijab

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on overcoming an abusive childhood, proposals to ban Muslim immigration, correcting a cashier's mistake, and more – is available here: Episode of 8 June 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Positive Change in Islam: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on positive change in Islam. The question was:

Can Islam change for the better? Many critics of Islam claim that the religion is inherently totalitarian, violent, and repressive – and hence, that change for the better is utterly impossible. An Islamic reformation or enlightenment will never happen, they say. Is that true? More generally, what are the limits of a religion's ties to its own scriptures?

My Answer, In Brief: As in every other religion, Muslims are not bound to the barbaric elements of Islamic texts. Islam can change – and hopefully will, for the better.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 26:54
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Christianity, Foreign Policy, Islam, Judaism, Philosophy, Religion

Links:

• Can Islam Be Reformed? by Daniel Pipes
• Wikipedia: Islamic Golden Age
• Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History by John Lewis

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on positive change in Islam, self-esteem and appearance, and more – is available here: Episode of 24 November 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Battered Women in Islam

Public slashing of Palestinian woman’s throat over divorce sparks protest:

BETHLEHEM, WEST BANK—The brutal killing of a battered wife in front of horrified witnesses in an open-air Bethlehem market prompted angry accusations Wednesday that Palestinian police and courts ignore violence against women.

Nancy Zaboun, a 27-year-old mother of three, had her throat slashed Monday after seeking a divorce from her abusive husband of 10 years. The husband was arrested at the scene and is the prime suspect, West Bank officials said. The case reverberated across Palestinian society because of the brutality of the attack. However, violence against women continues to be tolerated — similar to attitudes in other parts of the Arab world — and women’s rights activists say abusive husbands are rarely punished.

Zaboun was regularly beaten by her husband, 32-year-old Shadi Abedallah, at times so severely that she had to be hospitalized, said Haula al-Azraq, who runs a West Bank counselling centre where Zaboun sought help. Even so, Abedallah was never arrested. Police only made him sign pledges he would stop hitting his wife, said al-Azraq, adding that Abedallah himself is a former police officer.

Zaboun was killed after attending a hearing in her divorce case. She was walking on the steep paths of an open-air market — not far from the Church of the Nativity, marking the traditional birthplace of Jesus — when she was fatally slashed.

What can be said about such a case? Or about a culture and religion that does not merely tolerate such terrifying brutality against women, but actually encourages it?

Read more...

Taliban Marriage Counseling

Alas, it's too true.

Read more...

The Fruits of Arab Spring?

I can barely stand to read this report: Egypt's First "Sex-Slave" Marriage:

What is being dubbed as Egypt's "first sex-slave marriage" took place mere days after the Muslim Brotherhood's Muhammad Morsi was made president.

Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi began the program by airing a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, "marrying" his "slave." Before making the woman, who had a non-Egyptian accent, repeat the Koran's Surat al-Ikhlas after him, instead of saying the customary "I marry myself to you," the woman said "I enslave myself to you," and kissed him in front of an applauding audience.

Then, even though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared her forbidden from such trappings, commanding her to be stripped of them, so as "not to break Allah's laws." She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, certainly by Muslim standards, a promiscuous red dress (all the other women present were veiled). The man claps for her as the video-clip ... ends.

The owner-husband, Abd al-Rauf Awn, then appeared on the show, identifying himself as an Islamic scholar and expert at Islamic jurisprudence who studied at Al Azhar. He gave several Islamic explanations to justify his "marriage," from Islamic prophet Muhammad's "sunna" or practice of "marrying" enslaved captive women, to Koran 4:3, which commands Muslim men to "Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four… or what your right hands possess."

There's more in the story, including links.

Read more...

Man Rapes New Bride with Chloroform

Man jailed for using chloroform to rape his new bride:

A husband who raped his new wife after knocking her out with chloroform when she refused him sex has been jailed for eight years.

The man, 35, tied her to a bed with a scarf and used the anaesthetic twice during their six-week marriage. His wife, a Bangladeshi ­immigrant, 23, first turned him down on their wedding night because she was too nervous.

The husband had denied the two rapes in Poplar, East London.

At the Old Bailey, prosecutor Richard Hearnden said: “She says she was forced to marry him. “The period of time between the defendant first meeting her and the marriage ceremony was extremely short.”

Just eight years?!?

Read more...

Afgan Schoolgirls Poisoned

There's a very real war against girls and women going on in Afghanistan:

At least 140 Afghan schoolgirls and female teachers were admitted to a local hospital Tuesday after drinking poisoned water, said local health officials, who blamed the act on extremists opposed to women's education.

The victims range in age from 14 to 30 and were taken to a hospital in Afghanistan's northeastern Takhar province after their school's water tank was contaminated, according to provincial health department director Dr. Hafizullah Safi.

No deaths were reported, but more than half the victims partially lost consciousness, while others suffered dizziness and vomiting

It's not the first time: "In 2010, more than 100 schoolgirls and teachers were sickened in a series of similar poisonings."

Read more...

Islam Makes Women Invisible

Read more...

Video: Judging Religions as Better and Worse

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed judging religions as better and worse. The question was:

Are some religions better than others? Do certain religions encourage rationality more than others? Do some promote better moral systems than others? I am curious both about different forms of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian, Mormon, etc.), as well as other religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, etc.). Should rational atheists respect followers of certain religions more than others?

My answer, in brief:

Religions are better or worse in their core doctrines and in their effects on a culture. However, due to the complexity of religions – not merely as ideologies but also as a cultural movements – they can't be easily judged as better or worse. Also, just because a person claims to be an adherent of a given religion doesn't tell much about what he believes or practices, nor whether they are honest.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

Saudi Textbooks: Atrocities in Print for Children

The Arabic school textbooks which show children how to chop off hands and feet under Sharia law:

Barbaric textbooks handed out in Saudi Arabian schools teach children how to cut off a thief's hands and feet under Sharia law, it has emerged.

The shocking books, paid for and printed by the Saudi government, also tell teenagers that Jews need to be exterminated and homosexuals should be 'put to death'.

Go read the whole thing... and then remember that Saudi Arabia, however much oil might be under its land, is not our ally and should never have been treated as such.

Read more...

Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

In the Facebook Group for Front Range Objectivism, a reasonable person posted the following remarks:

Fabulous discussion last night [at an event where some Front Range Objectivists spoke]. However, I was truly disturbed to meet some among us, who are influential in the Objectivist community, who express prejudice against Muslims in general. I was hoping this kind of racism was going away, but it appears to be alive and well. We alienate reasonable people who might otherwise ally themselves with us when we make statements about all Muslims being terrorists. Yes, there are Muslims who are subversive terrorists. Unfortunately we have one in the White House right now. But we don't do ourselves any favors by stating that the Koran itself promotes terrorism, and that anyone who is a Muslim wants the world to be run by Sharia law. If you look carefully at the Bible, there are lots of dated and outrageous statements which no good Christian would incorporate into their lives today.

I have been fortunate to have many Pakistani Muslim friends, who are American citizens, who are patriots. Most if them are conservatives, too, and quite closely aligned with the Objectivist philosophy. They are disturbed and alienated by the kind of prejudice I heard last night. And they are voting with their votes and their substantial campaign donations. So am I.

Those themes are common, and I wanted to lay out my own view. So here's my reply, slightly edited. I could have done better, rhetorically speaking. Still, I think that I articulated my own position reasonably well.

Islam is a chosen religion, not a race. So it's not "racism" to criticize Islam or Muslims, any more than it's racism to criticize Christianity or to regard theocratic Christians as a major threat to liberty in the America. It's not proper to discriminate based on race, because race is unchosen, and has nothing to do with moral character. Religion is chosen, and has a huge impact on a person's character, values, and actions. A person should be judged for his chosen religion, not given a free pass.

As for how many Muslims are jihadists -- or support that -- that's another question. Given that Muslim violence against "the infidel" and others is not strongly and loudly condemned by Muslims in the US (and elsewhere), but instead often excused, condoned, and urged on, I can only regard most Muslims as either active or passive supporters of violent jihad. In contrast, that's not true of Christians in America. While the political views of most Americans are influenced (for the worse) by Christianity, most American Christians oppose attempts to impose sectarian dogmas by law, and they deplore violence. That's because Christianity, unlike Islam, has been tempered by the Enlightenment. (Alas, that's disappearing slowly...)

Muslims opposed to violent jihad are disobeying the explicit commands of their religion. If that's their true view, however, then they ought to stand up and say that, particularly given the barbaric acts of their fellow adherents. But they're almost entirely silent. Hence, the rest of us are entitled to assume that they really don't have a huge problem with fellow Muslims blowing up Jewish children, murdering daughters for being too western, executing gays, stoning rape victims, killing apostates, and so on.

Of course, if you know particular Muslims who support American values... that's AWESOME. However, just as with Christians, those Muslims ought to abandon their religious beliefs, because they're wholly incompatible with any concern or respect for individual rights.

Read more...

Creeping Theocracy in Women's Dress in Egypt

Theocracy is on the march in Egypt: Egyptian women fret as 'modesty' becomes election issue:

CAIRO -- Marwa and Heba are polar opposites, at least outwardly. Both 23 years old, Marwa, a recent university graduate and unemployed, is veiled, while Heba displays her hair in a pony-tail uncovered. Both take drags from their shisha (water pipe) at a local cafe.

Yet, in spite of their appearance, both are frustrated at the campaign promises being touted by leading politicians over how women should dress and act. A lengthy elections season has begun in Egypt, with legislative polling starting November 28 and continuing in stages until March, followed by a presidential vote in 2013. And, freed from the strictures of the Mubarak era, politicians are pushing forward on an Islamic agenda.

"It's so frustrating," says Marwa, who told The Media Line that she wears the veil in part because her mother wants it and partly out of the conviction that "it was the right thing to do." But at the same time she is critical of politicians "who would dare tell a woman what is appropriate. That is un-Islamic."

And:

The controversy over the status of women in post-Mubarak Egypt came to a head at the start of November after Hazem Saleh Abu Ismail, a leading presidential candidate and Muslim cleric, gave two television interviews in which he outlined an Islamic future for the country that would impose Saudi Arabian-style dress and behavior on the public.

In an interview on the 90 Minutes television program, Abu Ismail said he supported what he called "Islamic dress" for women, meaning the hijab, or veil. Asked about what would happen to a woman wearing a bikini on the beach, he responded, "she would be arrested."

Days later, he went on the Biladna Bil Masr program and lashed out at the show's popular TV host, Reem Maged, and all other unveiled women in the country. He declared al-tabarouj (the failure to cover one's hair and of wearing makeup) a "mortal sin" and said he would make such actions "criminal," citing his interpretation of Islamic law.

He told Maged he wouldn't have agreed to the interview at all because of her dress but said that in politics "things are different" and he has to meet with people from all walks of life.
To underscore his point, a Facebook-based Salafist news outlet re-aired the interview with Maged's head and face covered by a dark filter to "veil" her.

Read the whole thing.

Read more...

For Women, Slavery in Islam Begins with Dress

The Rise of Islam in Russia means that women are not safe unless covered from head to foot. Here's a tidbit:

[Some] women feel pressure to adopt Islamic dress code from within their own families. On a recent afternoon, two women fully veiled in black--"Aisha," 22, and her sister-in-law, "Fatima," 24--sat on the worn carpet in the corner of their poor house in the Derbent region. The girls, former students from Moscow and Volgograd universities, preferred to keep their real Russian names anonymous. A few years ago, the two girls fell in love with Salafi Muslim men on the Internet and moved to Dagestan to start families with their religious husbands. "My husband wanted me to cover myself," says Aisha. Only her eyes can be seen above her black veil. "I try not to walk outside any more. People point at me, call me a terrorist." Fatima and Aisha have little choice but to obey their husbands. They know too well that men have full public approval to decide appropriate behavior for their wives.

Two years ago, Moscow human rights groups tried, and failed, to get an official explanation for the deaths of seven women shot on a road in Chechnya. Kadyrov said the women had displayed "loose behavior" and speculated they were perhaps victims of "honor killings" by their own families. "We see a tendency for women to be forced into a humiliating social role in the North Caucases," says Tatyana Lokshina, a researcher with Human Rights Watch in Moscow. She said that courts traditionally have turned a blind eye to domestic violence in the region.

Go read the whole thing.

Read more...

Muslim in St. Louis Attacked for Pro-Israel Poem

KMOV of St. Louis reports on horrifying violence against a Muslim supporter of Israel by other Muslims:

An on-line political magazine, FrontPage Magazine, published a photo of a man with a Star of David, carved into his back. News 4 interviewed the man, who says he was attacked on Compton Avenue, just south of downtown on August 14th.

Alaa Alsaegh says that two cars followed him as he drove on Compton. The drivers cut him off and Alsaegh says he pulled over. That's when two men got out of a car, armed with a handgun. They got into Alsaegh's car and attacked him with a knife.

Alsaegh showed us a photo that his friend took at the hospital. More than a month later, Alsaegh still has scars. News 4's camera captured the outline of the Star of David, visible on Alsaegh's back.

Alsaegh is a Muslim from Iraq. He says he recently posted a poem, online, expressing support for Jewish people in Israel. Alsaegh says that his attackers told him not to publish any more poems.

St Louis Police confirm that officers responded to a call for help around 10:45 a.m. on August 14th. The department referred News 4 to the local FBI office. Spokeswoman Rebecca Wu responded via email saying, "The FBI cannot comment".

Alsaegh says the authorities have been investigating the attack, but have not made any arrests.

Here's the story on Front Page Magazine, which include an image of the man's back.

Via The Gateway Pundit.

Read more...

Islam Endorses Sexual Slavery for Girls

New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as 'Marriage':

Muslim "child-marriage"--euphemism for pedophilia--is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle."

Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that "Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry."

Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam's role model, married Aisha when she was 6-years-old, "consummating" the marriage--or, in modern parlance, raping her--when she was 9.

Notably, Fawzan is not saying that sex with a girl is permissible when she reaches sexual maturity. Rather, as he says:

The ulema [Islam's interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].

Basically, a girl just need to be large enough to be under a man without being crushed, and then her husband, a.k.a. the man to whom she was sold into sexual slavery by her father, is entitled to do whatever he pleases with her.

If you can stomach to read about the real-life consequences of these policies for Saudi girls, go read the whole article.

Read more...

The Obedient Wives Club

Appalling, but not shocking, because it's consistent with Islamic doctrine:

RAWANG, Malaysia — As a new bride, 22-year-old Ummu Atirah believes she knows the secret to a blissful marriage: obey her husband and ensure he is sexually satisfied.

Ummu and some 800 other Muslim women in Malaysia are members of the "Obedient Wives Club" that is generating controversy in one of the most modern and progressive Muslim-majority nations, where many Muslim Malaysian women hold high posts in the government and corporate world.

The new club, launched Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom.

"Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu, who wore a yellow headscarf.

Read the whole article.

Read more...

Muslim Cleric: Some Women Must Be Beaten

According to this Muslim cleric, three kinds of women simply must be beaten, and to fail to do so is to violate the commands of God.



But Islam is the "religion of peace," right?

Read more...

Islam and Rape: Two Stories

First, Scott Connery of Rational Public Radio reports on a horrifying case in which Alicia Gali travels to the supposedly modern Muslim country of the United Arab Emirates, where she is drugged and raped, then imprisoned in brutal conditions for nearly a year... for the crime of adultery. Why? Because she reported the rape to the police.

Second, in Bangladesh, a 14 year old girl is raped by an older man who had been harassing her for some time, then sentenced to 100 lashes, also for adultery. She collapses and dies after receiving 70 lashes. The initial autopsy reported no injuries (!!) to her body, saying that her death was a suicide. Her parents -- father and mother -- are seeking justice for their innocent daughter, even at the risk of reprisals.

If you think that Judaism or Christianity are much better, that their holy texts would never sanction such atrocities, think again.

Read more...

Draw, Don't Burn

It occurred to me that it may not be perfectly obvious to everybody why I and many others endorsed and participated in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day but I oppose Terry Jones's idea to burn the Koran. If you think the two acts are similar or comparable, you are utterly confused.

The first critical point here is that, as Sarah Palin pointed out, people have a political right to burn the Koran, as they have the political right to burn the flag or the Christian Bible. But just because you have a political right to do something, doesn't make it moral.

As I argued with respect to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, it is perfectly moral to draw Mohammed, even in a disparaging way. Doing so constitutes (or at least may constitute) a constructive addition to the cultural discussion and state some sort of interesting point.

On the other hand, burning the Koran is a repulsive and immoral act, simply because burning any book to protest the contents of the book is repulsive. The way to fight bad ideas is to argue against them, not try to wipe them out of existence. This point is especially poignant given the Christian penchant for burning groundbreaking scientific texts during the Middle Ages.

Consider the worst book I can imagine, Hitler's Mein Kampf. While I don't have the stomach to read it, I want people like Stephen Hicks to read it and explain to the world precisely why it is so evil.

I regard the Koran as basically a bad book because it demands total personal sacrifice to a false supernaturalist construct. While debate rages about the proper interpretation of the text, nobody can seriously dispute the fact that the book has inspired many to commit grotesque acts of violence, oppress and abuse women, and murder homosexuals and "infidels." But the goal should be to read the book, understand it, and explain why it's wrong.

All that said, the very fact that the Obama administration has warned about possible Islamist violence in the wake of a Koran burning illustrates the vicious nature of the violent incarnations of the religion. Burning a book, so long as it's your copy of the book, violates nobody's rights. Hurting or killing somebody obviously does. Burning a book should not be a crime; committing vioence against another person properly is. If Muslims seriously regarded their beliefs as a "religion of peace," they would not respond to a book burning with violence.

While it is wrong to burn any book to protest its contents, it is immeasurably more evil -- and properly against the law -- to physically hurt or threaten people for their beliefs or expressions.

This article originally was published at Free Colorado.

Read more...

9/11 "Day of Service and Remembrance" Embraces Islamic Creed

Day of Service and Remembrance Should Honor The Selfishness of Our Heroes

In Michelle Obama's letter to Americans about the second annual Day of Service and Remembrance on September 11 she writes "On the anniversary of this tragic day in our history, I hope you will join me in honoring all those who put the needs of others before their own by serving in your community."

This sickeningly saccharine sweet "Gee Thanks" to our American heroes is nothing less than a tacit endorsement of the very creed of our enemies: sacrifice.

Cut to: Michelle Obama's inspiration for what she calls "selflessness": "the brave men and women of Flight 93 who sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of others..."

United Flight 93 had been diverted by hijackers to Washington, D.C. Through cell phone calls, some passengers and crew learned about the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and decided to storm the cockpit to retake control of the plane they realized was also to be used in a terrorist attack. What you hear in those various cell phone calls are not dutiful proclamations of sacrifice for others, but the intent "to do something now" along with fearful and devoted goodbyes to loved ones. From transcript,

"I need to go," she said. "They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I love you. Goodbye."..."They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" Then the line went dead.

Cut to: Michelle Obama's source of inspiration to serve: "....to the first responders who rushed without hesitation to help those in need...."

See the iconic Pulitzer-prize winning photograph of three New York firefighters raising the American flag upon the smoldering ashes of the World Trade Center and ask yourself, "what might have been in the hearts of those first responders, whose job it is to rescue?"

Cut to: Michelle Obama's source of inspiration to serve: "to the young men and women who chose to join our Armed Forces following the attacks..."

Recruitment in the Armed Forces "hit the ceiling" after 9/11, coinciding with a sustained increase in Americans' patriotism (defined by the Oxford American dictionary as "having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.")

Zoom In: Our 9/11 American heroes were not being "selfless." They were being deeply "self-ful." Their most precious values--loved ones and home--were in the midst of an unprecedented attack. Shame on you, Michelle Obama, for glorifying the death-inspiring creed of selflessness while America is at war for its very existence against Totalitarian Islam.

Day of Service and Remembrance Serves Obama's Political Theology, Not Our Heroes

From the press release:

The September 11 National Day of Service and Remembrance is the culmination of a seven-year effort started by 9/11 family members and support groups to establish the service day as a way to honor the victims and heroes of 9/11 and to rekindle the spirit of unity and compassion that followed the attacks...September 11 also marks the end of the summer phase of President Obama's United We Serve initiative and its transition to a long-term, sustained effort.

In proclaiming the day of remembrance last year, President Obama said, "Working together, we can usher in a new era in which volunteering and more service is a way of life for all Americans. Deriving strength from tragedy, we can write the next great chapter in our Nation's history and ensure that future generations continue to enjoy the promise of America."

This sounds a whole lot like Black Liberation Theology politics explicitly endorsed by pre-and post-Presidential Obama, a subject I have addressed in earlier posts.

Remembering September Eleven

First of all, on September 11, 2001, almost 3000 Americans didn't just "(lose) their lives," as our First Lady writes. They were viciously murdered by Islamists intent on destroying this country. Her minimizing and evasion of this truth is a profound dishonor not only to those who were killed and to their grieving families, but to all Americans who are the ultimate target of Totalitarian Islam.

Secondly, the heroes and soldiers fighting the war against Islamists are not merely "serving" altruistically for the welfare of others. They are fighting these killers' atavistic doctrine for a most personal self-interested purpose: to protect the sacred values of American individual rights and liberty and for very personal reasons of protecting their fellow soldiers whom they bond with in battle and the people they love back home.

The words of one soldier, Christel Ables, in 2004 brings to life why he serves in Iraq, an official military front for the War on Terror:

I am new to the army...I come from a long line of soldiers. My father, Robert Ables is an Iraqi war veteran. I found out a month ago that I will be going as well in just a few months. I was scared out of my mind, as I had been keeping up with all the news since the war started. I talked to my dad about the war. He was there just before, during, and after the initial bombing of Iraq. I will never forget what he told me. He said, "Honey, you would be silly not to be scared...Remember that courage is not the absence of fear, but the willingness to face it. It is in my opinion that every soldier is already a hero. I was in charge of a platoon, and one thing we did was go around and let everyone tell the story of why they joined. Most answers were for college money, for opportunity, to see the world... but one soldier told me something I rarely hear. He said that he lived in New York when 9-11 happened. His whole world died. His wife worked in the trade center, and his 11-month-old son was there at day care. They didn't make it out alive. He had no one to live for. His parents died when he was 17. He decided that he could live for his country and continue to fight for the freedom that his father and grandfather fought for him." With a hug and a good night, I went into my room and reflected on what my father said. He was right you know... I AM scared, but I am also ready to fight for my country, and for everything that our veterans fought for before my time.

Michelle and Barack Obama defile what America truly stands for by embracing the ideal of sacrifice, the very creed of the America-hating Islamic terrorists who immolate human life and values in the service of "Allah."

Read more...