The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

Not that I am aware of. What was his faith based agenda? I don't think he was. Please name the agenda, and describe how it was faith based.

Sure, the 'Christian Right' wants to have the ten comandments on public grounds, They want prayr in school, They want abstinance only, They want ID taught in public school, they want to ban gay marriage, they wanna ban Sponge Bob, Pokemon, D&D, and anything else they don't like.The Dominionits and Reconstructionists advocate full control by christians of govt. They want god written into the constitution. They want laws based on biblical morals. And they would have history re-writen to say that the country was not founded on secular principals. That's incorrect. There are plenty of conservative folks who disagree with christianity. Unfortunatly the religious folks have blured the line between faith and polatics and now it seems impossible to extricate the terms from each other.I object to your use of the term "liberal" and "leftist" as you are using it inapropriately in this context.

MLK believed in taking the principles of non-violence and equality as expressed by Jesus Christ, and as an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, to mobilize first church members frequently using the pulpit and church services as a means of mobilizing people for political action according to those principles, and anyone else willing to assist, to make those principles a matter of law. He was, in fact, using his religion both religious beliefs and religious services to codify into law religious beliefs, and also very strongly preached a method of political activism which he felt was based on his religion and the teachings of Jesus Christ.He was a minister of the gospel who used his ministry to bring the principles of Jesus Christ into the political arena and that's a fact!

What's wrong with that?You want laws based on your morals and beliefs, and Christians want laws based on their's. Once again, you seem to be inable to distinquish between legislating religious laws into law, and merely allowing for religious values to influence law. There is nothing wrong, unConstitutional or anything like that with Christian values influencing legislation. So? And how does this legislate religion? Is anyone required to obey the Bible just because a Ten Commandments is on public ground?Let me ask you this. When a statue of a famous secularist is put up on a public property, is secularism as a religion being codified into law? Take a step back and look at what you advocate.You advocate the forced removal and banning of anything in publicly owned arena that mentions or relates to Christianity all the while pushing for your own ideology, or religion, to be pushed on everyone else. You are against religious expression because you want to ban allowing public expressions related to religion even though our Congress has always opened with Christian prayer, including the assemblies that ratified the Constitution. Gasp! How is this any different than you wanting full control by liberals of government? Is it OK for liberals to be in power, according to you, but inherently wrong for Christians to be in office? Is the political arena meant to be off-limits to Christians.Get real. What you believe and express is mere anti-religious bigotry.

What you posted to me was bitter, hostile and insulting. It was nothing of what you describe. here is your post, again:"This is a bald-faced lie when one considers the contents of this thread. You made the accusation of "moral relativism" (which I am not sure is a bad thing in any case) in reference to certain posters, paraphrasing them to say that "Christian fundamentalists and Islamists are one and the same..."You have given no defense. You have made an unsupported assertion and acted offended when people didn't accept it. This is the act of a petulant child, not a defense.I don't care to see a defense, having read your nonsense before, I just wanted to let you know that it is easy to see through your ham-handed equivocations. Jar is right to disregard you, as I am going to go back to doing."

The hallmark of leftist thinking these days is relativism. It permeates almost all leftist thinking. It applies to leftist perspectives on faith too. Thus leftists equate most cultures, nations and faiths as equal, and often equivalent. Yet, at the same time, relativists typically see the west as the bad guys in conflict with non western parties.this is what underlies many of our differences, and specifically this discussion.

What's wrong with that?! WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT!?!I can hear jefferson rolling in his grave.1) It's unconstitutional.
2) Biblical morals are non pluralistic.
3) They are outdated. Inevitably a parties "values" will influence things, however, a legislator has to be objective and impartial. He cannot let his personal, "faith" opinion, sway his rational objective descisions.Case in point. I recently heard an interview with Jimmy Carter on NPR. Carter talked about how some big abortion bill came across his desk and he went ahead and let it pass. Carter explained that even though he, "personaly" did not agree with abortion, he realized that that was his own "private religious belief" and it could not play a part in him making an objective decision on what was essentially a matter of privacy. Because the 10 commandments are exclusive. One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not have any other gods above me". How is that pluralistic?Would you be ok if there was a budhist shrine or a koran enshrined at the court house? Secularism is not a religion. Secularism is not anti-religion. Secular simply means NOT RELIGIOS.In other words, tax dollars cannot go forrward to promote one particular religion above the others. Meaning you cannot simply put a statue of jesus in the park unless you put a statue of everyone elses god there too.Kinda like in school, the teacher caught you chewing gum and asked: "Do you have enugh for everyone? No? Well spit it out then." Same idea. Hahahhaha! My own ideaology??What, you mean NO IDEOLOGY?Whats so bad about saying "No one should be pushing anything on anyone"Hows that? Happy?That's what I advocate. I'm sorry im so eeeeevilll. blah blah blahI don't give a rats ass. I don't think congress should open with prayr, I don't think god should be on our money. I don't think it should be in the pledge.I DON'T THINK IT HAS A PLACE IN GOVT.!What people do in their own houses/churches/private property is their own damn buissness.If our president was a hindu, I wouldn't wanna hear him praise vishnu all the damn time. It has nothing to do with conservative/liberal none of that crap. I don't belive any one group should maintain full controll over govt. In any case, the dominionists want more than just christian controll, they want to legislate based on christian laws. That's wrong.Second of all you toss around this word liberal all the damn time as if you think its some sort of religion in itself. This is not a matter of liberal polatics vs. conservative polatics. Its a matter of separation of church and state.The fact is nobodys god belongs in our govt. No one should be pushing any religion on anyone. Period. No. If you think that's what I said you didn't read it. I don't think the govt. should abide by any religion, what individuals do within govt. Is their own buisness. You hear what you wanna hear.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 07:45 PM

While I don't doubt that king was a faithfull beliver, there are two things working against you on this point.1) Many MANY christians at the time preached against the civil rights movement using the bible itself to back them up.2) MLK said he was inspired by Gandih:Martin Luther King Jr. - Wikipedia Some more on king and Gandhi:http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jan/king.html Ghandi was a hindu.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 07:56 PM

I've read that there is discrimination, and also that there is not. That other identifiable ethnic minorities have prospered speaks to that a) whatever discrimination there is does not preclude success, and b) some of it, such as it is, is based not on prejudice, but experience. That is, if an employer has several times hired an arab, and almost everytime regretted it, then he has reason to predict that future Arab hires will also go wrong. If that is so, then that suggests something culturally amiss.france may have its faults, but it is, on the whole, populated by a fair-minded, tolerant western liberal democratic people. There would be a great many, very likely the clear majority, who are not prejudiced. And, there would be nothing to stop any person, independent of ethnicity, from getting educated as anything, from mechanic to business executive, and from starting their own businesses.If we always look to social reasons to explain failures, then we will never hold the individual to account for his success or failure. That will induce only more failure.we should also consider all those who were once terribly discriminated against in North America, but succeeded anyhow...like Asians and Jews (who, because of quotas, had to attain higher marks to get into universities).

quote:

---

this is what underlies many of our differences, and specifically this discussion.

---

Actually, what underlies this discussion is whether it was fair of you to characterize a previously expressed opinion as baseless.If a person can present factual evidence and/or a logical argument to support her position, her opinion is not baseless. She may even be wrong, her facts may be inaccurate, or her premises may make her argument unsound. But if it remains necessary to examine her facts and her arguments, then her opinion is not baseless.When you accuse others of making baseless assertians you are saying that they make assertians with very little effort, if any, to support them. So when you accused others of making baseless assertians, which is definitely not true since in the instances to which you referred, they did in fact present supporting evidence, you either do not understand their arguments or you are deliberately denigrating them so as not to have to confront them.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

As one must register to access the paper's internet site, i will post this editorial from today's edition. it argues that the rioting is both because of social and religious reasons.
=====================================================================Nov. 7, 2005 20:01 | Updated Nov. 9, 2005 1:16
The Paris intifadaIn the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US media became preoccupied with a key question: "Why do they hate us so much?" A fair-minded people, the Americans believed there must be a good, rational explanation why 19 educated, economically comfortable young men would ram planes into buildings, killing themselves along with thousands of innocents.Among the many reasons proffered, one that appeared frequently - and drew concern in Jerusalem - was that it was all due to US support for Israel. If the US would only toe a more pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian line, this argument ran, then the Arab and Muslim masses wouldn't hate it so.The events in Paris over the last 12 days have confirmed the vacuity of this argument.Since the mid-1960s, France has consistently been among the most pro-Arab countries in western Europe.Indeed, one can make a compelling argument that one reason French President Jacques Chirac was so opposed to the US war in Iraq was that he believed this would give France special status among the world's Muslims.France, unlike the US, cannot be accused of a pro-Israeli slant. Nevertheless, its Muslim youth are rioting in the banlieues of Paris. Though it is too early to dissect this ongoing French revolution, one thing that can already be said is that these rioters hate France - otherwise they wouldn't be destroying its property and setting fire to its towns and suburbs.And this hatred of France has nothing to do with Israel.Why is this important to state? Because for too long much of the West, with France at the vanguard, has tried to paper over its real conflict with radical Islam with the argument that if only a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict could be found, then all would be well with the world and Islamic enmity would disappear.Not so. The Muslim youth in France are not rioting as a sign of solidarity with their Palestinian or Iraqi brothers. They are rioting in large part because they feel discriminated against, alienated, and cut out of that great French "liberte, egalite, fraternite" pie.The French would be wise to pay attention to the fact that these flames of alienation are being fanned and leveraged for their own use by Islamic radicals who - as the homegrown London bombers proved in July - are thriving on the streets of Europe.Parallels can be found with our reality. At one time the Arab-Israeli conflict looked predominantly like a territorial one. Indeed, this thinking underpinned UN Security Council Resolution 242, which created the territories-for-peace rubric.What was ignored was the religious and ideological component of the conflict. It is not coincidental that the recent Palestinian paroxysm of violence here goes by the name of al-Aksa Intifada - and not, for instance, the Gaza intifada, or the West Bank intifada.Naming the violence after the mosque on the Temple Mount, and not one or other of the disputed territories, underlines that religious component, a component that - with the help of Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad - has made the conflict much more violent, volatile and intractable. Land-for-peace, for the radical Islamic groups, has always been obsolete.France - yes, ironically, France - has now awakened to find itself facing a similar dilemma.The instinctive reaction in France to the rioting has been twofold: a pledge to restore security and to address the "causes" of the rioting: the deprivation, discrimination, alienation and rootlessness of the rampaging, largely Muslim, youth. One cannot argue with either of these two points.But French policy makers would be unwise to overlook the religious, ideological dimensions of the battle, and the way Islamic radicals preaching from the mosques and spewing out hatred via the Internet are able to prey on this disaffection and import a toxic ideology into France and the heart of Europe.True, the current riots in France may be about rootlessness and alienation of minority youth, but they are not only about rootlessness and alienation. Radical Islam is part of the mix as well, and the French will ignore that at their own peril.

Our World: The Paris fall
By CAROLINE GLICK
[Print this Article] [EMail this Article] [Subscribe] [SMS Alerts] [JPost Toolbar] [JPost ePaper]The French are in serious trouble. They have a home-grown insurrection on their hands. In some ways - mainly in the intensity of the violence - the current insurrection recalls the 1968 student rebellion. But there is a major difference between the spring of 1968 and the autumn of 2005. In 1968 the rioting students - at least those who weren't receiving their orders from the Soviets - felt they had a stake in France and its future.The firebombers and marauders in today's riots do not feel any significant commonality with the people they are rioting against. As Theodore Dalrymple explained in his Autumn 2002 City Journal essay, The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris, the Muslim youth rioting today feel nothing but nihilistic or Islamic hatred and alienation from their country and their countrymen. In his words, "They are of France, but not French." Dalrymple explained that the bloated French welfare state houses, clothes, feeds and pays its unassimilated immigrant communities in a manner that enables disaffected youth to "enjoy a far higher standard of living (or consumption) than they would in countries of their parents' or grandparents' origin, even if they labored there 14 hours a day to the maximum of their capacity."At the same time, he observed that in the ghetto housing projects that ring the major cities of France where these rioting young men live, "The state, while concerning itself with the details of their housing, their education, their medical care, and the payment of subsidies for them to do nothing, abrogates its responsibility completely in the one area in which the state's responsibility is absolutely inalienable: law and order." Today both the absence of law and order and the total alienation of the burgeoning Muslim immigrant population of France have coalesced in a manner and an intensity that has motivated some observers to write of the violence of the past week and a half as "the fall of France." France has fallen, these mordant observers tell us, because the multicultural overlords of the French chattering and governing classes are unable to muster the will to contend with either the problem of violence or with the problem of social alienation.News reports of the violence quote police commanders who define the insurrection as "a state of war." On Saturday night, as the firebombers and violent mobs spread to Normandy, Philippe Jofres, a deputy fire commissioner from the area, told France 2 television, "Rioters attacked us with baseball bats. We were attacked with pickaxes. It was war." Some fire chiefs and policemen are asking for the army to be brought in to quell the violence. Law enforcement officials and French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy have noted that there is coordination among the militants. People have been seen passing out petrol bombs and other ordnance from their cars to militants on the streets. Instructions are given by cellular telephones and Internet sites. French Prosecutor- General Yves Bot told Europe 1 he could see "organized actions, a strategy" informing the militants in the streets.For their part, law enforcement commanders seem not to have any strategy to speak of. Their actions to date call to mind the image of feckless cat herders. The militants - at least those who are found - are chased from place to place with uninspiring results. On Saturday night, when some 1,300 cars were torched and businesses, schools and stores were ignited throughout the country, only 200 arrests were made. In light of the constant increase in the scope and volume of attacks, one can assume that those arrested were expendable foot soldiers.
It would seem that the French authorities need a two-pronged approach to dealing with their mini civil war. First they need to take control of the violence. In order to do so, they have to stop chasing the rioters and have the rioters come to them. This is necessary in order for them to gain a basic understanding of the command structure of the rival they face. There are people giving orders. There are people deciding where and what to attack. These people need to be arrested and either sent to prison or deported.Were the police to choose tactically significant locations within the ghettos where these militants live and simply take them over, they would force the militants to confront them in an area they can control. The locations they choose should afford them geographical control over a discrete area - say one square block. As the militants attack them, reinforcements can enter the area from pre-planned routes and easily take control of the area.In the arrests that will ensue, the police will be able to see, after confiscating the militants' cellular phones, where their orders are coming from, and move swiftly to arrest the lieutenants, who will lead them up the feeding chain. In acting in such a manner, the authorities will induce systemic shock on the militants, who will suddenly be forced to contend with a previously unfamiliar situation - French government control over "their" territory. By thus gaining the initiative, the authorities will be able to eventually achieve control over the violence.One of the notable aspects of the violence thus far is the absence of murder. The militants have apparently decided to limit their campaign to property damage. No doubt this is because their objective is political, not military. As some Muslim leaders have explained, what they want is autonomy in their ghettos. They seek to receive extraterritorial status from the French government, meaning that they will set their own rules based, one can assume, on Sharia law.If the militants are able to achieve this goal, even on an informal basis, then those declaring that France has fallen will be proven right. The only way for France to save itself is to prevent such a reality from occurring. If the French government accepts the notion of communal autonomy, France will cease to be a functioning state.As Francis Fukayama argued in The Wall Street Journal last week, the French government must embrace the American notion of the immigrant "melting pot." As Samuel Huntington, quoting Hector St. John de Crevecoeur explained the term in his book Who are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, the product of the melting pot leaves behind him "all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds." In his previous stint as interior minister, Sarkozy attempted to bring the Muslim immigrants into the mainstream French national culture by forming official French Muslim bodies. Once the violence has been quelled and the leaders of the insurgency imprisoned or deported, the leaders of these official bodies - or alternative leaders - must be vested with the ability to bring French Muslims into French society. These efforts may involve ending the French welfare system as it is presently constituted and shifting subsidies from government handouts to job training. It must certainly involve consistently asserting law and order in the immigrant enclaves.One could ask why Israel should care what happens in France. Given France's traditional and rather obscene hostility towards Israel, a certain level of good old-fashioned schadenfreude would seem justified. But the fact of the matter is that Israel has two reasons to care about the future of France. First, five years into this global jihad we see that while Muslim terrorists or militants in Ramallah, Paris, Jakarta, New York, New Dehli, Tikrit, Amsterdam, London, Teheran, Umm el-Fahm and Beslan may not speak to each other directly, they are certainly aware of one another's actions and successes. And were France to fall, all of us would feel the aftershocks.Secondly, if France begins to assert its authority and responsibility for unassimilated Arabs and Muslims in France, perhaps Israel will be inspired to do the same for our Arab minority in Israel and Judea and Samaria, and thus move our country from a position of policy paralysis and defeatism to one of movement and strength.

The French have specific problems with the Arabic communities.No-one on this thread has made reference to the Algerian war in the sixties. Some posters have professed an ignorance of the details of the situation yet they continue to post.France dealt with an uprising amongst the Arabic middle class (led by university students) when they were the colonial power in the late 50s. Their reaction was almost a scorched earth policy with the support of certain assimilated Arabic groups. Schools, villages, mosques were destroyed in an effort to destroy resistance and when this failed, tried to discredit radical Muslims with set-up reprisal attacks in urban areas.When France decided to disengage and leave Algeria for good they allowed a large number of Algerians to enter the country especially those that had supported them in the war for independence. So unlike the UK or Germany the immigrants were not invited over as an economic entity, ie to fill low-paid jobs but as a political nicety as De Gualle tried to save his presidency throughout the sixties. That Arabic underclass remains, many with greivances we can only imagine as they are marginalised in the ghettoes outside Paris, Marseilles and other industrial cities of France. All it took was one spark and here we are.The people engaged in the rioting are 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants with little historical support for Islamic fundamentalism as they were the ones left behind in Algeria. Any anger is more likely aimed directly at the french government for ignoring their economic plight.

Since when are Western Democracies responsible for maintaining immigrant standards of living? If these disenchanted folk want a taste of reality, forcing them back to their own countries will teach them that nothing is a handout. Im surprised the Army is not involved! These rioters must be stopped at any cost!

Hi Phat - if you read my post and perhaps read a little bit more about the Algerian war, you would realise that the immigrants in the 50s and 60s were 'invited' over after their home country was made a dangerous place to live for them by the French. Their support for the colonial overlords in the battle for independence made them as much a target for the radicals as the French.The reward for their support has been to be transported away from their home country and repatriated to a country that did not really want them. Over the last 40+ years they have been marginalised by successive French governments embarassed by the war that led to them being in France. Whilst western democracies are not obliged to maintain anybody's (why point specifically at immigrants?) standard of living, at least creating an environment to allow them to fulfill their potential would be a start. I have been through some of the satellite towns around Paris and they are amongst the worse living conditions in western europe that I have seen. (I could also include some eastern european countries in that too)It's this them and us attitude that marginalises sections of society and fuels the fire when incidents like those seen in France occur. Sending the army in! Is this the current US solution for everything?As an additional note, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants in France are already in their own country, surely being an American teaches you that.