Speaking of persecuting Christians, Andy McCarthy, Nina Shea and Conrad Black were shooting the breeze on Islam and “co-existence” in these parts yesterday. By chance, I happened to come across Mitt Romney’s analysis of the global scene in 2009:
I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it’s quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world’s great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future. There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism… It’s by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.
Thank goodness for that, eh? I wonder if Romney supporter John Bolton agrees with this analysis.
The more I learn about Mitt and his "core beliefs” the less and less I believe him capable of leading this nation. His naive view of Islam is just another negative along with Romneycare; indexed minimum wage, his 59 point plan and on and on. One thing that is starkly clear is that mainstream Islam today is about imposition of sharia law and violent attacks on the West. If he is incapable of seeing that, he is incapable of protecting this nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...violent attacks on the West..."
I know dozens of westerners that fly in and out of Muslim countries every day and no one attacks them.
Further, did you ever consider, tiredturtle, that Islam may be rising in their opposition directly proportional to the west's descent into the pornified, open sex, happy to abort, homosexuality-celebrated mire in which we now live?
And the irony is that you might even agree with Islam on those points and they with you, but they don't know you exist. Sure they should consider that not all Americans agree with the sleazy media image that the world gets from America, and the world should be more thoughtful about that. But on the other hand it isn't as though religious Americans have take a stand on these things big enough to catch the world's attention.
Maybe westerners should give Islam credit for seeing and opposing sin and filth when it exists?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo "Collins": Your comments are too inane to warrant response.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell Mark, I'll tell you what Muslims tell my daughter living in Cairo about terrorists. They say, "What do they have to do with me? They are not Muslim."
Has any bloviating American like McCarthy ever stopped to consider that right-thinking Muslims don't feel the need to moderate the fanatics because they don't consider the fanatics to be truly Muslim.
And if one were to dig further, one would find out that the question 'what does it mean to be Muslim' has been intelligently debated by Muslims for centuries. It isn't just a new found distancing.
How many Christians feel responsible for or connected to what Westboro Baptist church does?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFoolishness, Mr. Romney.
I can defend you (and myself) against the charge you're not a Christian. You're making it harder and harder for me to defend you against the charge that as a conservative statesman, you're a pretty good venture capitalist.
In case you need it explained, jihadism (I prefer "Islamic supremacism" -- the closer you make something sound like something liberals hate, the harder it is for them to consistently condemn you for criticizing it) absolutely *is* "a branch of Islam." Perhaps not the dominant branch, or even a "legitimate" one (although looking at the original Islamic sources, I think the jihadists have a fair argument that their understanding is closer to the original meaning of Islam than the modern moderates' kinder gentler Islam). But there's just no arguing that the jihadists are interpreting the same primary sources as the moderates are. They are absolutely a "branch" of Islam, and it's politically correct nincompoopery to pretend otherwise.
For the love of all that's holy, Mitt, GROW A SPINE!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you could make a similar argument about the KKK being a branch of Christianity. It may very well be true, but it would be unfair to Christians and unconstructive to categorize them that way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou could only make such a comparison if you knew nothing of Christianity, or of Islam.
The KKK violates everything that Jesus taught.
Jesus taught that we are to love one another and that we are all equal in the sight of God. That doesn't sound anything like what the KKK believes.
The jihadists on the other hand are only following what Muhammed (mhrih) taught.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was raised Catholic but will not claim to know a lot about Christianity. What I do know is that Christians also believe the Old Testament is the Word of God, and there are a whole lot of really awful teachings that could be implied by the Old Testament if taken literally. If some splinter group decided to follow some of those teachings literally I don't think it would be fair to lump them together with any of the major branches of Christianity.
I know even less about Islam, but I do know a handful of Muslims and can say that they are among the most humble, decent, peaceful and kind people I know. Drawing any similarities between them and Jihadists is just ignorant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I was raised Catholic but will not claim to know a lot about Christianity."
Tom Sowell wrote a piece last month about "presumptuous ignorance." It's a good read.
"If some splinter group decided to follow some of those teachings literally I don't think it would be fair to lump them together with any of the major branches of Christianity."
Not only would it be "fair," it would be the only accurate way to classify that group. Assuming that the group did adhere to the basic articles of Christian faith, but held to an understanding that they believed required them to continue following and enforcing the Levitical law, they would be mind-blowingly misguided Christian heretics, but not completely distinct from Christianity.
"I do know a handful of Muslims and can say that they are among the most humble, decent, peaceful and kind people I know."
Me, too. Great guys to have a beer with. (They had the beer, I had a Coke.) Their interpretation of Islam is much more amenable to my way of thinking than their distant cousins'. But just as the fundamentalists have no right to read these latitudinarian Muslims completely out of Islam, you and your Muslim friends have no fair basis to do the same to the fundamentalists. If anything, the fundamentalists have the better claim to being faithful to what their religion actually teaches.
"Drawing any similarities between them and Jihadists is just ignorant."
Who's doing that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a suggestion. When you attempt exegesis, it is always better if you do not admit profound ignorance in advance. Obviously your understanding of Catholicism is equal to your understanding of Islam. However, take heart. The leading (at least last week) Republican presidential candidate appears to have about the same level of comprehension regarding Islam! That means you can probably enter your name as a possible substitue at the dead-locked convention. Aragorn...Return of the King...I think it might be a winning campaign slogan. Let's see, that means we get Frodo as VP?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOkay, now that earns a Whiskey Tango.
Jihad is a fundamental principle of Islam. It's mentioned scores of times in the Koran, and in the vast majority of the commentaries from early Islam, it had an explicitly military meaning, denoting physical warfare in defense of Muslims and to expand the reach of Islamic law. These things are not disputed.
What is the overlap between the fundamental principles of Christianity, and those of the KKK?
The fundamental principle of Christianity is that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, through whose death and resurrection faithful men and women may be saved from their natural state of corruption and mortality. We can (and have -- hi, Lawrence!) quibbled each other silly about whether other articles of Christian faith are fundamental, but that's more or less it. Toss in the Ten Commandments and recognition of the Bible as divinely revealed scripture for good measure, if you like.
The fundamental principle of the KKK was white supremacism. If you like, toss in Jew-hating and anti-Catholicism for good measure. The 1920s version of the Klan also had some overlap with the Progressive movement, in particular its declared focus on public corruption.
Draw the Venn diagram here. How on earth do you possibly interpret the KKK as simply one more reasonable interpretation, among others, of the basic principles of Christianity?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat guy's argument is no different than the Lefties that swear that Hitler was a Christian.
He wasn't. As I learned from Jonah Goldberg, he was for Germanic paganism and attacked Protestant and Catholic churches. Within 6 years of his coming to power, the churches had replacec crucifixes and images of Jesus with pictures of Hitler.
I believe that if you dig a little into the KKK and other Neo-Nazi movements, you will find the same kind of beliefs.
But you see, this just wrecks the Leftist narrative and that is why it is twisted or ignored.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, guys a "branch" equivalent in Christianity would be something like Methodists, or more broadly Protestants, etc.
There is no "branch" of Islam called Jihadism. Certainly, Sharia law or Wahabism is a branch. But I don't know of anyone saying they are of the Eastern Jihadistic Sect...
Jihad is an Islamic concept (appropriated by many violent Muslims)
Jihadism refers more broadly to Islamic people who appropriate Islamic themes, and principles and mix it with their own geopolitics to declare war on their enemies.
But it's not a branch of the religion, it describes how some misuse the religion. Obviously everyone knows all Jihadists declare their are Islamic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on, Steyn! You can never have enough Islamaphobes around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA while back, Mark posited that Congresswoman Bachman's poll ratings went in inverse proportion to how much she seemed to be quoting America Alone. Elections are not in this country decided by those who are paying attention, and that fact, for better or worse, needs to shape how we approach elections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think there's some reasonable chance that in talking about the America that's the most American the America can America, Romney is dealing with that reality while having an innate understanding of at least some degree of the problem that's coming.
If our candidate stands up and warns of Armageddon, no matter how prophetically or correctly, then he will ensure that Obama can usher in that Armageddon.
Obviously, Mr. Romney is walking a tightwire here--trying to condemn hardcore Islamists whose sole aim is to "purify" the world through domination and acts of evil; while attempting to link arms with westernized Muslims who just want to practice their faith and be left alone.
He's perhaps muddled the terms, as defined by some purist lexicon, but I think the sentiment is still understandable, and commendable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Basket Case" - Gotta love those captchas! Describes Romney's slow motion train wreck of a campaign.
To the Duck & the Turtle, welcome to the party. What kept you? To many of us who got suckered in 2008 with Mitt's wonderful "resume" (you know what they say about resumes and reality), and were forced to flip a coin between the trio of right-center moderates (Mitt, Huck & Rudy), and elevated style over substance out of desparation, we wonder what has taken you guys so long to figure Mitt out.
I can understand Mormon birds flocking together (although I still find it unsettling, sort of like black and Jewish voting blocks) , and I can understand how perceptions will sometimes withstand the inexorable pressure of reality for a very long period, but Romney is not a mystery in the way Obama was in 2007/2008. Romney's record has always been available to those with the curiosity and common sense to compare action against rhetoric, and take the measure of the man. I supported Mitt in 2008 because I did not know any better. In 2011 & 2012, I looked past the hype and realized he was a typical Republican chameleon candidate, who had one "primary" goal (pun intended) - to get elected.
The stupid party is again poised to nominate another in the long line of moderate Republican "loser/losers" and "winner/losers". Loser/losers such as McCain, Dole, Bush senior and Ford who lost general election contests which enabled the progressive machine to quickly grow government ever larger. And winner/losers such as Bush junior, Bush senior and Nixon who won their general elections but willingly participated (but "more effectively managed") the growth of the Federal leviathan. All were complicit (as were many others at the Senate and House level, not to mention the Republican itellectual class) in the disaster with which we are now faced.
Good to see you have some concerns about the latest version of Republican royalty. Better late than never!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLex, as annoyed as Romney frequently makes me, who the hey else is there? Rick Santorum's got no greater call on being The True Conservative. He supported Arlen Specter over a real conservative. That alone would do it for me.
Gingrich? A self-confessed Teddy Roosevelt-style National Greatness "conservative," just like John McCain (only smarter), with a personal Aaron Burr-sized ego that would magnify the worst, eschaton-immanentizing aspects of National Greatness thinking. Has compromised with Leviathan every bit as much as Romney, except on a national scale. Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi to promote global warming alarmism.
Ron Paul? Interesting, but way too close in some areas of his thinking to (1) your stoner high school friend who thought himself profound for blathering on about American "imperialism"; and (2) your crochety Old Right grandfather.
The other flashes in the pan? Sadly not ready for prime time.
Our problem is this: The Republican Party has only recently made any sign whatsoever about getting Tea Party serious about constitutionalism, entitlements, and other Hard Things. Any serious contender for the Presidency, under the way we do things, will have had a lengthy background in politics. (Who was the last guy who didn't? Eisenhower?) With the electorate -- even the Republican electorate -- having so long preferred that their politicians "speak to them smooth things, and prophesy deceits," as Izzy put it, virtually any person who has had anything remotely resembling a functioning political career longer than five years, has a baggage load full of compromises with The Way Things Are Now.
Notwithstanding their lack of past ideological purity, either Santorum or Romney would, I am thoroughly convinced, govern more conservative than any President not named Ronald since Calvin Coolidge. Maybe in a few years, there will have risen through our constitutionalist-refocused ranks a conservative who has been conservative since he hatched. But unless we nominate someone who's never had to run for office, contenting himself to bloviating on message boards (and if someone wants to form me a super-PAC to promote me as a dark-horse brokered-convention possibility, I wouldn't pull a Sherman), you go to war with the army you have. And Romney's just not that far different from the rest of the ranks right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTPD - Sitting at the bar with our favorite adult beverage (coke included), I am guessing that we might agree on 80% - 90% of what you have posted. However (there is always a however), I will briefly take issue with your closing point(s). Or more specifically, with your premise that either Romney or Santorum can/will be elected and would govern more conservatively than anyone other than Dutch Reagan or Silent Cal. Although I can accept the possibility that Romney might defy what appears to be his natural gravitational pull to the center, and govern as a transformational conservative, the more critical question is his assumed electability. I have become increasingly more convinced that despite his many genuine attributes, he also has a "perfect storm" of weaknesses that would spell defeat in the general election. As the pressure of the campaign has inevitably increased, my gut level concerns are continuously validated. The turnout numbers from every primary and caucus except SC also validate in macro, my micro perception that he will not generate sufficient enthusiasm within our base to ensure a victory. And a second Obama term is not an option. That's it. Mitt is the right candidate at the wrong time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I can understand Mormon birds flocking together (although I still find it unsettling...)"
In my own case, it's strictly selfish. As long as are the odds of my ever playing in the political big leagues, I'd like to think I'd be evaluated on my political principles and personal competence, not on what somebody thinks he knows about what I believe about God. So I root not so much for a fellow religionist, but for the breaking of a glass ceiling I see standing in my own way, or in the way of other good men.
Say Senator Mike Lee -- as pure conservative as you're going to find short of Jim DeMint (maybe), were a candidate for the nomination. Would we still have to put up with this "We can't elect him...it would make the Mormons *respectable*!!" nonsense?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse