Mitt Romney is said to be the early frontrunner in the GOP presidential sweepstakes. One rival, Newt Gingrich, is perceived as floundering in a swirl of unforced errors and staff insurrection. Yet when it comes to Islam, which will continue to matter mightily in the next administration, the frontrunner could learn a thing or two from the flounderer. The issue is not religion. It is the seditious Islamist political program.
Most Americans, myself included, would prefer not to have to think about Islam at all. Muslims forced their beliefs onto our consciousness by wanton violence and gross violations of human rights. While there are fitful efforts to reform Islam, and thus differing interpretations of its dogmas, mainstream Islam is still founded on sharia, Islam’s archaic, immutable legal framework (also known as “Allah’s law”).
Advertisement
Sharia systematizes discrimination against (and brutal repression of) women, homosexuals, and, above all, non-Muslims (“dhimmis”). It is thus ironic that when the left-leaning legacy media broaches the subject of Islam, as CNN did during the GOP candidates’ debate this week, the context is usually claimed discrimination against Muslims. It is a testament to how deeply front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood — an enterprise that marries Islam’s Salafist fundamentalism to modern statism, under the populist banner of “social justice” — have seeped into the Democratic party, from which the press gets its talking points. And given how desperately the GOP establishment craves the crumbs of love that fall from the media’s table, it should not surprise us that Republicans, too, are cowed by the Brotherhood’s agents. That was not a Democratic president hustling over to the nearest mosque after the 9/11 attacks to brand Islam the “religion of peace.”
With barely concealed contempt, a CNN correspondent recounted Herman Cain’s prior statement that “a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country,” then pointedly asked the candidate, “Are American Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christians or Jews?” For CNN, as moderator John King made clear, this is strictly a matter of religious discrimination: Even amid a war against Islamic terrorists, even amid unabashed promises to “conquer America” from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime, to regard Muslims differently is to violate the constitutional protections accorded to religious believers.
Cain gave a game albeit wandering answer, distinguishing “peaceful Muslims” from “militant Muslims” who are “trying to kill us.” This dichotomy leaves out a third, more insidious group: ostensibly peaceful, covertly terror-supporting Muslims who are trying to destroy the U.S. from within by using the freedoms available in the West to infiltrate our government and institutions — what the Brotherhood describes its “Grand Jihad” (the descriptor I used as the title of my book on the subject). Cain, however, did address this third category, at least implicitly, in objecting to sharia’s creep into American courts.
King construed Cain as seeking to impose “a purity test, or a loyalty test” uniquely on American Muslims before allowing them to serve in government — a fair description, though a bracing one that drew Cain’s objection. The exchange teed up the issue for Governor Romney. King asked him, “Should one segment of Americans — in this case for religion, but in any case — be singled out, treated differently?” Of course, the problem is not that Islamist Muslims are members of a religious group but that under the auspices of religion they pursue an anti-American political program. Yet Romney did not question King’s premise. He accepted it, and he exhibited a disturbing detachment from reality on the ground: “Well first of all, of course we’re not going to have sharia law applied in U.S. courts,” he said. “That’s never going to happen. We have a Constitution, we follow the law. No, I think we recognize that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, our nation was founded on the notion of religious tolerance, it’s in fact why some of the earlier patriots came to this country. And we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.”
The late-breaking news for the man who would be America’s next president is that we already have sharia law being applied in U.S. courts. Put aside the embarrassingly patent fact that having a Constitution has never meant “we follow the law” — judges ignore the Constitution regularly, and Romney’s own campaign aims to show that President Obama has run roughshod over our constitutional order. The fact is that sharia-based claims are now routinely posed in American legal cases and, increasingly, entertained by courts. Indeed, right before Romney spoke, Cain alluded to a New Jersey judge’s refusal to grant a protective order to a Muslim woman who was being serially raped by her Muslim husband — reasoning that the husband was merely following Islamic tenets, under which the wife is chattel and has no right to refuse.
Here, the specific faith to which Romney adheres might hinder a rigorous defense of Western values where it matters.
OF COURSE, Mormons have no doctrrine that even approximates the Muslim doctrines of sharia, taqiyya, and jihad.
But: both religions claim to worship the God of Abraham and claim some sort of reverence to Jewish and Christian Scripture, but both introduce their own religious texts which were largely the results of one individual claiming a unique and personal revelation from God, texts that make novel claims about history long-past, claims that haven't been confirmed through archaeology or from contemporary documents.
There's enough overlap between the two that one can legitimately wonder if Romney would, understandably, whitewash Islam to protect his own faith.
But that concern is in ADDITION to the general left-ish assumptions Romney seems to make, e.g., on an active technocratic state, so I readily concede his Mormon faith may have nothing to do with this issue.
As both a committed, believing Mormon and a professional (Arabic-fluent, doctorate-holding) scholar of Islam, I would just like to say that the suggestion made in the post immediately above is both absurd and offensive.
There's no "overlap" between my faith and Islam such that I'm obliged in any way to "whitewash" Islam. And I don't.
I do, however, believe, in justice, truth, and charity. And I've been a serious conservative since my youth, a subscriber to National Review since I was about fifteen years old.
I deeply resent attempts to treat me as a second-class American, or, as implicitly here, a disingenuous or essentially blind apologist for Islam (or, even worse, for enemies of American freedom) simply because of my religious faith.
I doubt Romney's faith has anything to do with it.
"Islam is Peace" is an item of faith in the political establishment - - - and neither party is exempt.
Whether it's a pander for votes or just avoiding the onslaught of criticism, few of our so-called leaders are willing to speak directly to the issue. Politics trumps national interest.
Does anyone else remember after 9-11 Congress singing God Bless America on the Capital steps?
In those following days, there was a tremendous National embrace of Christianity and patriotism. The Nation gained a strength as we looked upon eachother as neighbors and brothers, where everyone did what they could do for the Country.
President Bush made it a point to ensure a backlash against Muslims did not occur. Unfortunately in doing so, the fact that this is a religious war was lost. Islamists, "radical" Islamists - we mad a distinction for identification, then blended the two for inaction again. This way our allies in the ME were protected against revolution, and stability in the region would be ensured.
Well, now we are facing the same religious war in an unstable region with our allied powers no longer in charge.
I guess the point is, until we are willing to embrace that America was built with a Christian foundation and proudly display that belief, we are fighting a multi-front holy war - with absolutely nothing to defend.
How many of those sympathetic to Sharia (no seperation between church and state) would scream bloody murder at the thought of a Christmas display in a public building?
Based on 30-second answer, McCarthy leaps to ridiculous conclusions.
I think Romney's answer was the right answer. Touting religious freedom is always right.
If they ask him about Islamic extremists and jihadis he would also have answered well. McCarthy should have read Romney's Book, NO APOLOGY next time before he opines about Romney's views on radical Islamists. The counter to McCarthy's arguments can be found there. He could have saved himself time and foolish exposure.
The problem here is not Romney's lack of insight with regard to sharia and Islam; the problem is Romney's lack of core principles and integrity. It is painfully clear just by watching him that he will do and/or say anything that will further his political ambitions. First he is pro-choice and now he is pro-life (I am pro-choice); first he designs, organizes and pushes through a universal health care bill in Massachusetts, and now he denounces Obama's health care bill and decries universal health care in general, and claims that what he did is not the same thing as what Obama did. When Romney says that sharia will never get a foothold in America...that scares me to death!
And yet, how many Americans believe we have Muslim as President?
As far as Govt jobs, a little scrutiny and care could go a long way. Remember, there are those "out there" who do hate us and would see us, as a Nation and as individuals, die. We have some tragic examples in the military to prove there are holes in the process.
The fact they are never terrorist attacks, says volumes about our unwillingness to seriously defeat this enemy.
So a Muslim holding a Govt job is just fine, maybe preferred in the current environment. Care, however, should be used in the hiring process. After all, a babysitter should not be a child molestor, nor should a Nursing Home hire sadists.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you! ;-)
Romney needs to prove that he is adamantly opposed to any application of Sharia in our court system. It hardly makes sense to tolerate intolerance ... unless you're a Democrat.
Though this may not prove too much in the case of sharia, since religion is either subsumed or simply identified with a particular legal and social order and not so much with spiritual life, it still may prove too much for religion and state in general. Seeing religion as merely a private matter is a secular imposition on the normal religious consciousness. A religion is not just personal, community specific, and private. Religion is a life system or workview that intergrated all dimensions if life. Religion will this insist on being able to influence public issues by specifically religious reasoning. It will not accept the view that insofar as it does so it's not religious, nor should it accept the view that it can only argue for it's own values using secular reasons. This is an illegitimate limitation on true religious liberty, since it imposes a code of silence on religion's necessary impulse to comprehensive coherence.
And I would add that there is absolute nothing wrong with enforcing Sharia as, and in so far as it is possible, contract law agreements if both parties so agree.
We do it for Jewish law and have for some time (see e.g. Jewish prenup divorce provisions mandating Jewish arbitration.)
"There's no 'overlap' between my faith and Islam such that I'm obliged in any way to 'whitewash' Islam."
I agree with this statement COMPLETELY: Mormonism does not oblige its adherents to whitewash Islam.
Nevertheless, there are similarities between the two religions. In the origins of the religious texts that each religion holds uniquely as scripture, and in the approach each takes to extant Judeo-Christian scripture -- nominal respect with a giant asterisk, that the texts have been corrupted -- Islam and Mormonism are similar.
In THOSE respects, at least, the Koran and the Book of Mormon have more in common with each other than either does with the New Testament. The New Testament's writers claim to be witnesses to public miracles and not just recipients of personal revelation, and the New Testament treats the Old Testament as the wholly trustworthy revelation of God. The sacrifices have been superceded by Christ's death, but they weren't corruptions of the text: they were a shadow of what was to come.
In the last go-around, in the speech on religion that NRO largely praised (and over-praised), Romney wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. He wanted to assure Christians that he believes Jesus is the Son of God, but (absurdly) he ruled out any closer examination of his faith as enabling an unconstitutional religious test(!).
It was clear during the last primary season that, beyond invoking his faith in Jesus to appeal to conservative evangelicals and Catholics, Mitt Romney wants his faith to have as low a profile as possible. I think it's entirely fair to wonder, then, whether he can be a clear-eyed critic of religious doctrines like sharia law: any criticism of a religious doctrine would make one's own beliefs a more prominent issue of discussion, and in this case the risk is increased by some OTHER similarities between Mormonism and Islam.
One could ask a Protestant politician how he opposes jihad if he supports evangelism, and that would lead to a simple discussion of the differences between proselytizing by persuasion and by coercion -- but ONLY if the politician wasn't over-eager to move to other topics. If he were reluctant to discuss his faith at all beyond any bland platitudes, one COULD wonder whether he can and will stand up to jihad.
Basically, the issue isn't that Romney's a Mormon: it's that he's a Mormon who's evidently reluctant to discuss his faith beyond any beliefs that have broad ecumenical appeal
I READILY admit (again) that Romney's reticence may only be from the prevailing political correctness of the ruling class. I may be completely off-base in bringing up his faith at all.
"So the logical conclusion is that Muslims need not apply for government jobs because their oaths of loyalty are fecetious."
When someone, while working for the government, displays a disconcerting pattern of antagonism toward this country, we have an obligation to take seriously his words and deeds before they lead to something serious -- even if that someone is a Muslim, and even if his antagonism is rooted in his religious beliefs.
We ought to learn from our mistakes in ignoring the obvious warning signs with Nidal Hasan, otherwise his victims truly died in vain. Let us recall that one of the first official responses to the Fort Hood massacre was to assure the American people that diversity(!) wouldn't be a casualty of the event, and there's been a concerted effort to downplay the obvious religious motivations of the attack.
Mr. McCarthy: Your best line is the following: "[Islam] is a totalitarian political program masquerading as a purely spiritual doctrine." I would disagree, however, with your phrasing " ... under the auspices of religion." I would say, 'under the cover of religion.' Final comment is the irony of titling Muslim areas 'Dar es Salaam,' and non-Muslim areas 'Dar al-Charb.' I think the should be reversed. BTW - I wouldn't doubt that Peter Wehner will take you to task on this column.
Lawrence @7:58 - An historical note - The reason Christianity retained the Hebrew Bible was quite pragmatic. It was that the Romans had an aversion to anything new (as in, if it's new, it's not true). By retaining the Hebrew Bible, the newly formed Christian sects could say they were an offshoot Judaism and hence not a new religion. There were indeed movements within Christianity in the second century that wanted to discard the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, Gnostic Christians viewed the God of the Hebrew Bible as a demiurge and not the true God.
Carlo-Jimbo @7:40 - The sad fact is that "orthodox" Muslims can and will lie to the infidel and that casts a shadow on all Muslims. Until Muslims have been vetted regarding their adherance to Islam, they will have a shadow of a doubt hanging over them. Rephrasing what was said of the Soviets in the Cold War: Verify and then trust.
I'm at a bit of a loss about what, specifically, Mr. McCarthy wants Gov. Romney or anyone else to do other than angrily to thunder meaningless platitudes (such as, "I shall oppose all efforts to impose Shariah law on Americans!") that are designed to make Mr. McCarthy feel better.
Glare at Muslims? Be mean to them? Say bad things about Islam to your friends and family? What, concretely?
I started to read the Center for Security Policy report and gave up after awhile because it wasn't about the-imposition-of-Sharia-law-in-America, but about cases in which courts - sometimes correctly and sometimes not - decided mundane matters of conflict of law (not "Sharia" v. American, but Pakistani v. American) that courts do all the time (yes, there are also conflicts between British, Israeli or Canadian law and American law that are, like conflicts between Pakistan or Iranian and American law, decided according to American conflict-of-law principles) or questions of whether and how one's religious beliefs (which could be Mormon, Catholic or Islamic) affect one's liability for "intentional" acts, etc.
I'm not saying there's nothing here, but there seems to be less than meets the eye. A lot of this appears to be quite-normal conflict that has a Muslim (as opposed to Jehovah's Witness, Mormon or Jewish) gloss to it.
And it doesn't help to argue that a conflict involving "Islam" rather than "Judaism" or "Pakistani law" rather than "Irish law" is "different" because "Muslims and Pakistanis want to stone or behead everyone!" because the same principles apply - i.e., we make decisions about and when to allow religious views or foreign laws to affect the outcome of American court cases knowing full well that such views or laws may have vicious or evil effects.
It's important that we get the answers right, but there's also no need to act like a bunch of frightened old women about it.
I'm not sure that most conservatives agree with the premise of your question, CarolinaJimbo. Still, let's consider that premise, and let me ask you a question in turn: if--IF--there was reasonable cause to suspect that Muslim expressions of loyalties to America were commonly hollow, should that have any effects on government hiring, vetting, and security practices? I'd be fascinated to know your thoughts.
