Whatever the outcome of the current contests of political force, or even the drama of the run-up to the next major context, it behooves us to review certain basic features of the world at war.
The key principles in the intellectual fight against the Jihad, so far as one citizen, having studied and argued the subject at length, may venture with confidence, are as follows.
First, that we never lose sight of the pulverizing fact that the doctrine of aggressive, treacherous war to inflict conversion or subjugation is wicked and intolerable. We will have no fellowship and full force of ostracism, of opinion, effort and law, with those who believe otherwise. If there be any justice in the universe, aggressive, unprovoked war of conquest and empire, must stand condemned.
Secondly, that we must never forget the twist of deceit, that sullen and serpentine lie, by which mere unbelief, mere demurral on the question set before the conquered by Islam’s conquering armies, is itself a provocation to war or subjection. Once the evangel has spoken, all those who have heard the call must repent, confess Submission, or answer for their provocation.
Thirdly, that our antipathy is primarily for doctrines, not men. Many millions of the Muslim faith in their hearts reject the above sophistries. Our American tradition counsels strongly for respect for those who do not believe as we do; Americans deserve the benefit of the doubt, even if they are beguiled by deadly sophistries.
But sophistries these doctrines are — stark staring sophistries bent on blood. All just men are called to denounce and execrate them.
Now, as a matter of prudence, it seems to me that the weight of law should be brought to bear against these doctrinal menaces. It should be pronounced illegal to agitate for Jihad in America, or to promote its instruments. Thus any attempts to implement shariah or dhimma by subterfuge, as we have seen in Dearborn, MI, should be met with swift appellate justice. If defiance persists, Congress should pass resolutions to the effect that, should a judge show undue solicitude or shariah or dhimma, he may as well expect an impeachment will be forthcoming.
We should always keep Precept 1 in mind: Jihad and its subjugation ancillaries are wicked and intolerable doctrines. They are profoundly antagonistic toward our American tradition of politics. There is no reason that a republican people should feel obliged to endure the machinations of this menace.
I’ve long thought that such doctrinal precision, anchored in fact and axiom, might have prevented reckless endeavors in speculative theory like the Iraq War. Likewise it might have helped prevent the collapse into fatal casuistry that characterized the formulation of detainee and interrogation policy.
(Cross-posted.)
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
I'm a well-read college grad, and I've never heard of
Ann_W (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 7:39PM EST (link)execrate or causuistry. Maybe it’s just me, but probably the wording of this diary interferes with people completely absorbing it.
It does have some important ideas in it, though. Maybe I’ll reread w/ dictionary in hand if I have the time.
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
— Milton Friedman
The War on Poverty– forty-six years and counting!
Here ya go Ann_W. two definitions
gekster (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 7:55PM EST (link)from: Wikipedia
Casuistry
In applied ethics, casuistry ( /?kæ?u??stri/) is case-based reasoning. Casuistry is used in juridical and ethical discussions of law and ethics, and often is a critique of principle- or rule-based reasoning.[1] The term “casuistry” originates from the Latin casus (“case”).
Critics use the term pejoratively for the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions (see sophistry). Casuistry is reasoning used to resolve moral problems by applying theoretical rules to particular instances.
from: Dictionary.com
execrate
[ek-si-kreyt] Show IPA
verb, -crat·ed, -crat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to detest utterly; abhor; abominate.
2. to curse; imprecate evil upon; damn; denounce: He execrated all who opposed him.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Hey, there ain't nothing wrong
Paul Cella (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 8:12PM EST (link)with flexing the vocab when the circumstances call for it. Both words fit and came to me without assistance from digital aids. Natural inspiration as it were.
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Enjoyed the language very much.
littlehouse18 (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 9:33PM EST (link)It really brings out the passion of the argument and gives a new level of precison to it. What a shame that this level of writing and analysis has all but disappeared from our discourse. I’m reminded of how important the use of language was to our founding. I’m also sadly reminded of the epilogue to Orwell’s 1984, where the language was made bereft of its richness in order to weaken the ability of the populace to think independently.
Agreed, completely (n/t)
Finrod (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 10:09PM EST (link).
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?
Ok, I get it, I'm the only one here that didn't know those words.
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, May 26th at 8:52AM EST (link)I just think there’s a fine line between stretching for a word or two from context and using every 50 cent word you can think of. I thought it sounded stilted and detracted from the message. But I guess I’ve been told.
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
— Milton Friedman
The War on Poverty– forty-six years and counting!
Ann_W.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, May 26th at 9:38AM EST (link)I didn’t know the words either.
I had to look them up, and thought I would save you and others the time of having to.
I do learn alot of new words here.
You wern’t the only one.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved
Thanks, that was nice of you. nt
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, May 26th at 10:06AM EST (link)“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
— Milton Friedman
The War on Poverty– forty-six years and counting!
I don't mind reading words I don't know, personally
Finrod (Diary) Thursday, May 26th at 10:12AM EST (link)Then again my SAT verbal was 200 points below my math. I just hit m-w.com for words I don’t recognize.
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?
You think you're having a hard time...
blooch Thursday, May 26th at 8:43AM EST (link)It’s going to take the monomaniac dolts over at CAIR about two weeks to figure out how Paul has insulted islam and denied civil rights to muslims.
We’re always being told by haughty, patronizing Arabic speakers that their words don’t mean what the dictionary says, that Arabic is a subtle and beautiful language whose fullness is beyond the ken of a kafir.
Let them ruminate on Paul’s prose for awhile.
“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”
Sadly, Paul, our body politic is counter to what you suggest.
spainishirish (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 9:57PM EST (link)Here is a quick example, The initial reactions of Sens. Reid and Graham to the Florida pastor’s Koran burning was to limit the First Amendment. If a prominent person–no offense–sought to prohibit incitement to jihad against the United States , they would be derided as enemies of the First Amendment. No contradiction is seen.
You are right on all counts, of course, but it seems to be a losing cause with each passing day.
Good to see you back here, by the way.
Rightwardmarch's translation service
rightwardmarch Wednesday, May 25th at 11:30PM EST (link)Presenting “Review on Jihad” by Paul Cella:
Opposition to Jihad should be based on three principles:
1) Jihad is the use of force to convert non-believers, which is really bad.
2) *meaning unintelligible*
3) Islam is not the enemy, Jihad is the enemy. Most Muslims do not believe in Jihad.
We should counteract Jihad in the US in two ways. First, Congress should pass anti-Jihad laws and impeach judges who incorporate Shariah in their judgements. Second, speech related to Jihad should not enjoy First Amendment protections.
Finally, “doctrinal precision” (of which this piece is an example) could have prevented major blunders in American policy, specifically the Iraq war and the enhanced interrogation program.
Discuss.
Lying
spinoneone Thursday, May 26th at 12:28AM EST (link)is what Muslims are taught to do when necessary to blind, fool, or protect themselves and/or Islam from the unbelievers. As in, “If you can’t blind them with your brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.”
No.
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, May 26th at 4:01AM EST (link)“Second, speech related to Jihad should not enjoy First Amendment protections.”
Offensive generalized political and religious speech advocating non-specific violence has been a constant in this country since time immemorial. Moreover, it’s pretty hard to see exactly what is attained by banning such speech, seeing as how such speech in the US has never led to a terrorist attack. No, dealing with it at home through law enforcement and abroad using our military is sufficient without dismantling the First.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Question Authority
potkas7 Thursday, May 26th at 9:00AM EST (link)The first principle to apply in combating jihad is Definition. Too often we accept Islam’s traditional narrative of its origins and precepts at face value when we shroud begin by taking nothing as given and challenging Muslims to prove their truth claims.
Was there really a Muhammad? There’s little archaeological evidence to support that there was. Instead Muhammad may have been mythical figure like Britain’s King Arthur, a legendary first king who united the Arab tribes of the desert.
What about the Koran? Modern scholarship indicates that rather than being a single, unified work it is an anthology of texts compiled not at the Time of the Prophet – c. 7th Century A.D. – but rather in the 800 – 900 A.D. time period.
What about Islam’s conquest of the Mid-East? Again, little to no evidence. The more reasonable explanation is that the Arabs assumed control of the former Roman provinces as the Byzantine Empire withdrew its forces northward, and they took over with little bloodshed.
Christendom too once sought the answers to all of life’s questions in the pages of an old book. That changed with Francis Bacon and his “New Method” for acquiring knowledge – what today we call the Scientific Method: Empirical Observation coupled with Inductive Reasoning.
Islam is not so much battling Judeo-Christianity as they are fighting against modernity. The appropriate response to their medieval and superstitious claims is: Oh Yeah? Prove It!