While happy holidays definitely covers all the many holidays of this season
Christmas is a celebration of the Birth of Christ.
I find it interesting that the same people who demand that Christ be taken out of Christmas would not dream of demanding that Yahweh be taken out of Hanukkah or Allah out of Ramadan
While happy holidays definitely covers all the many holidays of this season
Christmas is a celebration of the Birth of Christ.
I find it interesting that the same people who demand that Christ be taken out of Christmas would not dream of demanding that Yahweh be taken out of Hanukkah or Allah out of Ramadan
Guess that hypocrisy knife cuts both ways
Well you see, Templelady, Neither Hannukah nor Ramadan were (ahem) 'borrowed' from another holiday, like Saturnalia or Winter Solstice was from the pagans as it was in the case of Christmas. Read up on church history for details. Oh by the way, I seriously doubt that many in the 'Happy Holidays' crowd want Christ _out_ of Christmas, but rather that their versions be acknowledged also.
And the hypocrisy knife doesn't cut nearly as deep as the knife of ignorance. <_<
(gives TommyZ a hot apple cider -- <--- hot apple cider :) )
A Muslim who becomes a naturalized American citizen is literally millions of times more likely to plot terrorist acts against his fellow citizens than a member of any other religious creed or political ideology (Islam is both). It is not possible to wage a meaningful “Global War on Terrorism” without considering the legal, moral, and pragmatic implications of this problem.
First, the facts. Muslims account for up to one percent of the population of the United States, in contrast to Western Europe where their share of the population is up to ten times greater. They like to pretend otherwise, and groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Muslim Council (AMC), and the Harvard Islamic Society routinely assert that there are between 4.5 and 9 million Muslims in the United States. It is remarkable that these sources do not provide any empirically verifiable basis for their figures.
Impartial studies currently place the number of Muslims at between 2 and 3 million. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) polled more than 50,000 people in 2001 and found the total American Muslim population to be 1.8 million. The University of Chicago’s Tom W. Smith reached a similar figure:
The best, adjusted, survey-based estimates put the adult Muslim population in 2000 at 0.67 percent or 1,401,000, and the total Muslim population at 1,886,000. Even if high-side estimates based on local surveys, figures from mosques, and ancestry and immigration statistics are given more weight than the survey-based numbers, it is hard to accept estimates that Muslims are greater than 1 percent of the population (2,090,000 adults, or 2,814,000 total).
It is estimated that up to two-thirds of that group are foreign-born immigrants, and about one half are naturalized American citizens. In other words, about one-half of one percent of the country’s overall population are foreign-born Muslims who are now naturalized U.S. citizens.
As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials are well aware (and some readily admit off-the-record), the attitudes of these people tend to change once their status in America is secure. As visa applicants or permanent residents they refrain from statements and acts that may make them excludable under current laws. But as soon as they gain citizenship, some among them are quick to rediscover the virtues of sharia and jihad. Examples abound:
• In June 2005 22-year-old Hamid Hayat was arrested in Lodi, CA, and admitted spending six months in 2003-2004 at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. He attended classes that included instructions on “how to kill Americans.” He and his father, Umer Hayat (47), are both naturalized U.S. citizens. They are in jail awaiting trial; both have been refused bail.
• In Falls Church, VA, Maher Amin Jaradat, was arrested on June 6, 2005, and pled guilty on July 14 to fraudulently procuring U.S. citizenship because he failed to disclose previous ties to militant groups.
• In May 2005 a naturalized U.S. citizen, Rafiq Sabir, was arrested in Florida and accused of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. Sabir is an Ivy League-educated medical doctor who lived in a gated community in Boca Raton. He pledged loyalty to al-Qaida and offered to treat injured or sick terrorists.
• In March 2004 two naturalized U.S. citizens, Ilyas Ali and Muhamed Abid Afridi, plead guilty to plotting to sell shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles to al Qaeda. Ali had previously claimed he was an innocent victim of Attorney General John Ashcroft and his over-zealous Justice Department. “Nine-eleven, me and my wife cried,” he said. “We cried for three days.”
• Mukhtar al-Bakri, a naturalized citizen, and five U.S.-born youths from upstate New York were convicted in 2003 of aiding Al-Qaeda, training in terrorist camps, and plotting attacks on Americans.
• In October 2003, Iyman Faris (34), an Ohio truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen, was sentenced to 20 years for providing material support to al Qaeda. He pleaded guilty to plotting to destroy Brooklyn Bridge by cutting its suspension cables. He became a U.S. citizen in 1999 and only months later, in 2000, he traveled from his native Pakistan to Afghanistan where he met bin Laden and other senior leaders who gave Faris his orders.
“We must never forget . . . that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government—anywhere in the world – in order to replace it by an Islamic one,” the speaker concluded his remarks. The venue was a mosque, not in Rawalpindi or Jeddah but in San Francisco. When a recent convert noted that if Muslims are obligated to overthrow the U.S. government then accepting Islam was tantamount to an act of political treason, the lecturer responded matter-of-factly, “Yes, that’s true.”
He was right both technically and substantively. A breach of allegiance to the United States by naturalized Muslims is not a rarity, it is an integral part of the Muslim-American experience. It is an inherent dilemma for many; it leads the serious few to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem will be solved only if and when Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who actively supports or preaches jihad, inequality of “infidels,” the establishment of the Shari’a law, etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
Before defining “activism,” let us remember that a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath,
that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. (In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.)
For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of brazen apostasy par excellence, and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists with “the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. In America that is not the case and its government is therefore illegitimate.
It is equally sacrilegious for a Muslim to swear to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That vow, if it means anything substantial, means that he would be prepared to shoot a fellow Muslim, or denounce him to the authorities, in defense of his adopted homeland. That this is not how many if not most naturalized Muslims see it is a matter of record.
So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath of American citizenship, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith and not only in order to get that coveted passport? A devout Muslim can do it only if in taking the oath he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of old-fashioned Jihad. Or else he may take it because he is not devout and may be confused, in other case if he is not a very good Muslim at all; but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point in the future he or his American-born offspring will rediscover their roots. The consequences of such awakening for the rest of us are invariably perilous.
The interior ministry of the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has introduced measures that seek to avert this danger. Potential German citizens will have to answer a 30-topic loyalty test dealing with marriage, sexuality, democracy, attitudes to other faiths, etc. The manual for the naturalization authorities insist that applicants for citizenship must concur with the “free, democratic, constitutional structure” of Germany. Personal interviews may last for hours and will be given to an estimated half of all applicants. The German scheme, while causing predictable expressions of shock and horror among the usual suspects, looks like a potentially useful first step that the United States should consider in reforming the entire naturalization process. The ultimate objective of the reform process, however, needs to address two key questions: why should a Muslim want to become a citizen of a secular, pluralist, non-Muslim state; and why should that state’s non-Muslim citizens want to have him accepted as one of them.
The answer is inseparable from the fact that a person’s Islamic faith and outlook are incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are implicit in the oath of citizenship, and absolutely essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government.
It is to be hoped that the acceptance of other proposed measures would lead to a swift and irreversible reduction in the burgeoning number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. The remnant would have to be registered with the Attorney General and subjected to all legal limitations and security supervision strictures that apply to other quasi-religious cults prone to violence.
Conditio sine qua non all along is to accept and declare that the First Amendment does not protect Jihadists. It is in the American tradition that nothing ought to protect those who advocate the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, and, at bottom, that is what the Jihadists are up to. Legal regulators need to grasp that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to American values and institutions.
No court in a democratic country should uphold the constitutionality of any measure targeted at a particular religion quia religion. But if the facts were known about what is going on in mosques, and what is the nature and goal of worldwide Jihad, the necessary legal regulation may be accomplished. The First Amendment protection to political speech should not extent to Sharia, period. We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment; we need an educational campaign.
The dominant view in the academy and in the courts is that any thought or political idea ought to be protected, so the educator’s job is to convince legislators that we are dealing with a new phenomenon more dangerous even than anarchism, fascism or communism. As our Legal Affairs Editor Stephen Presser points out,
If that is ever done, then the precedents from 1903 or 1920 basically kick in, and the Jihadists get perceived not as exercisers of First Amendment rights, but as dangerous subversives. Anyone trying to do that will have to plunge into the thicket of what a religion actually is, however, and the Courts are notoriously unclear on that.
A radically new form of legal clarity on Islam’s nature is needed before the acceptance of our proposals becomes reality.
On the bright side, the proposed measures are politically eminently feasible. In a study conducted a year ago to determine the public attitude to terrorism, a half of respondents polled nationally said they believe the U.S. government should curtail civil liberties for American citizens who are Muslim. It should be noted that they do so in spite of the efforts of an elite class that never tires of assuring us that we are dealing with the “religion of peace and tolerance!” When it comes to visa moratoriums for Muslim non-citizens, the picture is even more encouraging.
The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the strategic ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haigh, Pétain, or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held their ranks and positions. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This old cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.
Acceptance of these proposals would represent the long overdue beginning of serious Western defense against Islamic terrorism. It would signify the recognition that we are in a life-or-death struggle. It is being waged, on the Islamic side, with the deep conviction that the West is on its last legs, spiritually, morally, and biologically. That view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed in mortal peril. Even at this late stage a recovery is possible, however, and the suggested measures would herald that recovery.
This article is partly based on the final chapter of Dr. Trifkovic’s latest book, Defeating Jihad, which will be published by Regina Orthodox Press (Boston) on March 1, 2006.
I seriously doubt that many in the 'Happy Holidays' crowd want Christ _out_ of Christmas, but rather that their versions be acknowledged also
And just why must I do that???
I dont expect my Jewish brethren to wish me a merry Christmas nor my Buddhist brethren or any other group that is not of my religious persuasion--by the same token I do not feel compelled to wish them a happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or whatever
I am a Christan I celebrate Christmas
I am tired of the percentage of the population that feels that I should be ashamed or feel guilty for doing do.
If you choose not to celebrate Christmas--don't do so so
But you have no right to tell me I can't or even worse celebrate it while pretending I'm not, by substituting a ubiquitous Happy Holidays instead of a heartfelt Merry Christmas.
If you don't want to hear Merry Christmas come out of my mouth--Don't talk to me--
And As for the clerks in the stores "thank you Ma'am have a nice day" works just fine.
Merry Christmas to one and all and if you don't like it go back to were you came from or let me say Merry Christmas and if i want a Holiday Tree i will have it on Arbor Day I will set my Christmas Tree tommorow weather you like it or not
oh and by the way happy whatever day that you celebrate to you. i don't really think that you should be able give me any flack so i don't expect any from you! peace
Garthness, would it be okay if I started calling you Madeline Murray O'Garth?
If you'd been such a zealous proseletyzer in twi, I'm pretty doggone sure there'd be a statue of you in the Wowzah Auditorium. The plaque on the base would read, "Garth, King of PFAL Sign-ups."
Now, seriously, come on. Is anyone is making you celebrate Christmas? Can't others simply enjoy it without it bothering you? Or do you just like to stir the pot?
Garthness, would it be okay if I started calling you Madeline Murray O'Garth?
If you'd been such a zealous proseletyzer in twi, I'm pretty doggone sure there'd be a statue of you in the Wowzah Auditorium. The plaque on the base would read, "Garth, King of PFAL Sign-ups."
Now, seriously, come on. Is anyone is making you celebrate Christmas? Can't others simply enjoy it without it bothering you? Or do you just like to stir the pot?
I (for one), never equated Christmas as unique to THIS country (USA) and it's leanings toward Christianity
(whether or not we were founded on such -- as is discussed ad infinitum here at GSC).
But I do celebrate Christmas, and none of the other *holidays*.
Also I fully support other's who wish to celebrate the holiday of their choosing.
I don't tell them that their holidays are worthless (even though I may think so),
so I expect reciprocal treatment (even though they may think mine is worthless).
I love all these responses. Really I do. For one thing, the amusement value in them as to all the assumptions made and rigidly held to by people who think they are being attacked, when no such attack is really taking place.
Templelady,
You know what the problem is? It is that others of different beliefs want to share, _share_ mind you, in celebrating Christmas, but in their *own* way, and have that as part of society and its doings, and many religious Christians act as if they are being persecuted, like their religious beliefs and greetings are being forbidden.
Guess what? They aren't! At all! There is NO store that forbids you or anyone else from saying "Merry Christmas". There is NO law doing such. There is NO organization doing such. I dare you to document to me where this sort of behavior happens, AND where they aren't being sued out of existence. ... Guess what? You ain't gonna find it. Period. And for the people who want you to 'feel ashamed or guilty' for saying Merry Christmas, ... well, since when did their opinions really matter to you in the first place, hmmmm?
Dave,
Ditto!
Linda,
I have been posting on Greasespot for what, over 6 years now, and you have seen a-plenty of my posts ranging from topic A to topic Z. And you have seen me post on Waydale before that. So, I would think that you, more than most here, should be familiar with my mode of posting, particularly in regards to things I believe in. True, I am not the most diplomatic SOB here, but I remain rather consistant in posting in that respect. Actually take out 2 seconds and think about this, will you please, and you will realize that. So spare me the song-and-dance ranging from "zealous proseletyzer" to "Garth, King of PFAL Sign-ups." and the like. And no, nobody is making me celebrate Christmas, ... but then again, when did I actually say that, hmmm? For a more _clear_ in-a-nutshell interpretation of what my original and succeeding posts in this thread are, read (clearly) the last paragraph, ok?
Waterbuffalo,
May I ask what the patriotic factor of Muslims have to do with this topic? :unsure:
In any event, I just have to laugh at people's anal retentiveness re: this topic. They see persecution and restrictions where there are none or not enough to write home about. Like I said before, There is NO store that forbids you or anyone else from saying "Merry Christmas". There is NO law doing such. There is NO organization doing such. Yet folks of other beliefs want to celebrate Christmas in their own way, and have that practice accepted in society, and religious Christians go apes**t. It's like a little spoiled *brat* who will not share any of his toys _ever_. ... Yeah! Right! Classic example of Christian love and godliness? <_<
Hmmm, I like to think it is a season for generosity and good cheer, bringing some beautiful light into the darkness. Christmas, Yule, Hannukah, why does it have to be a competition?
Sheesh !! I don't get here much of late so what do I see first on my return. GARTHs topic that seemss to take a jab at Christmas. His typical political left leaning spin stuff. It's Chritmas and most Americans are enjoying the season so why not spread the anti -Christmas left leaning stuff. I can't believe he actually believes his party is better than the other. I guess he just likes jumping from one brain washing cult, TWI ,to another, the DNC.
Garth,come on, why not join the ranks of the 95.430 % of Americans that are employeed and get a life. My Christmas gift to you is ADVICE: there are NO true public servants on either side of the isle in the ranks of the elected. Honest politics is an oxymoron. So get up ..walk away from your puter and get out into the real high definition life where the honest folk live without political nametags but real honest to God homespun common sense.
As long as you chose to turn this public forum into one of your political platforms and bring in your political correct Christmas cheer. I think I will follow your lead:
Enjoy: maybe I'll stop in after Christmas and see what Garths political spin will be on St. Patricks Day.
Your 'analysis' is flawed for the following reasons:
1) Dec. 25th is NOT Christ's birthday. Nobody really knows when it is exactly, but some scholars (y'know, those who have done quite a bit of studying more than the average churchgoer?) place it around fall, while others place it in springtime. (Then there was TWI who placed it squarely on Sept. 11th, and we all know how flawed they are. )
2) Many people acknowledge Christ (on his 'supposed' birthday), and some do not. And even among those who do acknowledge him, apparently they are acknowledging this bearded fat guy in a red suit who is at his party a LOT more.
3) Songs and noels are still being sung about Jesus. It's just that those songs are outnumbered by "Rocking around the Christmas tree!" and like current tunes, ... again, many times by those who acknowledge Christ.
4) And this (supposed) not acknowledging that this is a birthday of sorts, again, is just not true. There is that type of acknowledging portrayed all over the place.
See, that's the Christmas side of the equation. Winter Solstice, which is what this time of year originally celebrated, so FAR precedes Christmas, it isn't even funny. And yet when that is brought into the picture, or any other non-Christian celebration of this time of year, it is automatically, blindly, and without question, presumed to be an aggressive attempt to drive out Christmas or anything related to Christ. Presumed. W/o question. ... as in, not thinking.
And people say that *I'm* anal, and oversensitive? It's well known that people talk about 'political correctness' run amok, like Hills attempt to portray me doing this very thing in this thread, evidently w/o even considering what I wrote or why. ("GARTHs topic that seemss to take a jab at Christmas." clearly illustrates this.) ... Nope. Gotta take the easy way out and whine and label it 'political correctness'. Actually, this virulant reaction that I speak against is the religious version of 'political correctness'. Why do I call it that? Because it is 'politically incorrect' to try to celebrate anything non-Christian on Christmas, regardless of any valid reason for doing so. I mean, look at how many are knee-jerk reacting here to my initial post, which is largely humorous in nature. So yes Hills, one doesn't have to be a secular leftist 'commie' to play the 'politically correct' game.
I got a challenge to all here who are up in arms about the 'taking Christ out of Christmas', mmm-kay? Take stock of how you celebrate Christmas and what you celebrate with. If it largely involves Santa Claus, "Rocking around the Christmas tree", going to the stores "to buy our big-screen TVs and dress our daughters like whores", (maybe thats one of the parts that some here find offensive, y'think? ), and pigging out on Xmas turkey, then you really don't have much to whine about 'taking Christ out of Christmas'; ... not really.
However, if it is heavily into Christ's birth, his salvation of all mankind, religious hymns & church services, and the like, okay then you have a basis to complain about 'taking Christ out of Christmas', ..... but that is only in regards to fellow Christians who say that they celebrate the 'Christ' in Christmas, ... but don't.
As regards to the rest of us blasphemous and unbelieving heathen who have the mitigated gaul to 'assault Christmas' by going around with 'Happy Holidays', 'Happy Winter Solstice' and the like, ... as Sgt. Hulka would say, "Lighten up, Frances!".
I celebrated Christmas (uh, that's Karisumasu) in Japan one year. Seemed just about the same as here -crassly commercial, overindulgent, and basically meaningless.
There's an urban legend that in the '50s there was a Karisumasu display in one of the major Tokyo department store windows that showed a smiling Santa Claus nailed to a cross. I think that embodies just about everything the holiday stands for. A phony feel-good charitable attitude, borrowed symbology - the true meanings of which are never questioned and long since lost to history, and a mindless quest to buy, buy, buy.
Why couldn't we just go back to the good 'ol days and have a few bonfires, gorge ourselves on pig's head, and maybe sacrifice a few virgins? Geeze, nobody's got any respect for tradition anymore...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
5
10
7
Popular Days
Dec 2
16
Dec 1
14
Dec 4
11
Dec 3
10
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 13 posts
waterbuffalo 5 posts
templelady 10 posts
dmiller 7 posts
Popular Days
Dec 2 2006
16 posts
Dec 1 2006
14 posts
Dec 4 2006
11 posts
Dec 3 2006
10 posts
TOMMYZ
Shouldn't this go in the "Politics And Tacks" forum ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Happy Hanna-Rama-Kwanz-Mas to all.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
BAHH! Humbug!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Let's put the Saturn back in Saturnalia!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Another year to entertain once again a plastic, light-up "Mithra" for my front lawn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
While happy holidays definitely covers all the many holidays of this season
Christmas is a celebration of the Birth of Christ.
I find it interesting that the same people who demand that Christ be taken out of Christmas would not dream of demanding that Yahweh be taken out of Hanukkah or Allah out of Ramadan
Guess that hypocrisy knife cuts both ways
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOMMYZ
Garth, I live outside of Chicago and just came in from shovelling snow. Can I have a hot cider instead ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well you see, Templelady, Neither Hannukah nor Ramadan were (ahem) 'borrowed' from another holiday, like Saturnalia or Winter Solstice was from the pagans as it was in the case of Christmas. Read up on church history for details. Oh by the way, I seriously doubt that many in the 'Happy Holidays' crowd want Christ _out_ of Christmas, but rather that their versions be acknowledged also.
And the hypocrisy knife doesn't cut nearly as deep as the knife of ignorance. <_<
(gives TommyZ a hot apple cider --
<--- hot apple cider :) )
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
I'm not so politically correct as you, Garth.
Maybe it's because I read too much. dunno.
Can a Pious Muslim Become a Loyal American?
A Muslim who becomes a naturalized American citizen is literally millions of times more likely to plot terrorist acts against his fellow citizens than a member of any other religious creed or political ideology (Islam is both). It is not possible to wage a meaningful “Global War on Terrorism” without considering the legal, moral, and pragmatic implications of this problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the facts. Muslims account for up to one percent of the population of the United States, in contrast to Western Europe where their share of the population is up to ten times greater. They like to pretend otherwise, and groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Muslim Council (AMC), and the Harvard Islamic Society routinely assert that there are between 4.5 and 9 million Muslims in the United States. It is remarkable that these sources do not provide any empirically verifiable basis for their figures.
Impartial studies currently place the number of Muslims at between 2 and 3 million. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) polled more than 50,000 people in 2001 and found the total American Muslim population to be 1.8 million. The University of Chicago’s Tom W. Smith reached a similar figure:
The best, adjusted, survey-based estimates put the adult Muslim population in 2000 at 0.67 percent or 1,401,000, and the total Muslim population at 1,886,000. Even if high-side estimates based on local surveys, figures from mosques, and ancestry and immigration statistics are given more weight than the survey-based numbers, it is hard to accept estimates that Muslims are greater than 1 percent of the population (2,090,000 adults, or 2,814,000 total).
It is estimated that up to two-thirds of that group are foreign-born immigrants, and about one half are naturalized American citizens. In other words, about one-half of one percent of the country’s overall population are foreign-born Muslims who are now naturalized U.S. citizens.
As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials are well aware (and some readily admit off-the-record), the attitudes of these people tend to change once their status in America is secure. As visa applicants or permanent residents they refrain from statements and acts that may make them excludable under current laws. But as soon as they gain citizenship, some among them are quick to rediscover the virtues of sharia and jihad. Examples abound:
• In June 2005 22-year-old Hamid Hayat was arrested in Lodi, CA, and admitted spending six months in 2003-2004 at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. He attended classes that included instructions on “how to kill Americans.” He and his father, Umer Hayat (47), are both naturalized U.S. citizens. They are in jail awaiting trial; both have been refused bail.
• In Falls Church, VA, Maher Amin Jaradat, was arrested on June 6, 2005, and pled guilty on July 14 to fraudulently procuring U.S. citizenship because he failed to disclose previous ties to militant groups.
• In May 2005 a naturalized U.S. citizen, Rafiq Sabir, was arrested in Florida and accused of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. Sabir is an Ivy League-educated medical doctor who lived in a gated community in Boca Raton. He pledged loyalty to al-Qaida and offered to treat injured or sick terrorists.
• In March 2004 two naturalized U.S. citizens, Ilyas Ali and Muhamed Abid Afridi, plead guilty to plotting to sell shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles to al Qaeda. Ali had previously claimed he was an innocent victim of Attorney General John Ashcroft and his over-zealous Justice Department. “Nine-eleven, me and my wife cried,” he said. “We cried for three days.”
• Mukhtar al-Bakri, a naturalized citizen, and five U.S.-born youths from upstate New York were convicted in 2003 of aiding Al-Qaeda, training in terrorist camps, and plotting attacks on Americans.
• In October 2003, Iyman Faris (34), an Ohio truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen, was sentenced to 20 years for providing material support to al Qaeda. He pleaded guilty to plotting to destroy Brooklyn Bridge by cutting its suspension cables. He became a U.S. citizen in 1999 and only months later, in 2000, he traveled from his native Pakistan to Afghanistan where he met bin Laden and other senior leaders who gave Faris his orders.
“We must never forget . . . that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government—anywhere in the world – in order to replace it by an Islamic one,” the speaker concluded his remarks. The venue was a mosque, not in Rawalpindi or Jeddah but in San Francisco. When a recent convert noted that if Muslims are obligated to overthrow the U.S. government then accepting Islam was tantamount to an act of political treason, the lecturer responded matter-of-factly, “Yes, that’s true.”
He was right both technically and substantively. A breach of allegiance to the United States by naturalized Muslims is not a rarity, it is an integral part of the Muslim-American experience. It is an inherent dilemma for many; it leads the serious few to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem will be solved only if and when Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who actively supports or preaches jihad, inequality of “infidels,” the establishment of the Shari’a law, etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
Before defining “activism,” let us remember that a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath,
that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. (In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.)
For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of brazen apostasy par excellence, and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists with “the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. In America that is not the case and its government is therefore illegitimate.
It is equally sacrilegious for a Muslim to swear to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That vow, if it means anything substantial, means that he would be prepared to shoot a fellow Muslim, or denounce him to the authorities, in defense of his adopted homeland. That this is not how many if not most naturalized Muslims see it is a matter of record.
So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath of American citizenship, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith and not only in order to get that coveted passport? A devout Muslim can do it only if in taking the oath he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of old-fashioned Jihad. Or else he may take it because he is not devout and may be confused, in other case if he is not a very good Muslim at all; but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point in the future he or his American-born offspring will rediscover their roots. The consequences of such awakening for the rest of us are invariably perilous.
The interior ministry of the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has introduced measures that seek to avert this danger. Potential German citizens will have to answer a 30-topic loyalty test dealing with marriage, sexuality, democracy, attitudes to other faiths, etc. The manual for the naturalization authorities insist that applicants for citizenship must concur with the “free, democratic, constitutional structure” of Germany. Personal interviews may last for hours and will be given to an estimated half of all applicants. The German scheme, while causing predictable expressions of shock and horror among the usual suspects, looks like a potentially useful first step that the United States should consider in reforming the entire naturalization process. The ultimate objective of the reform process, however, needs to address two key questions: why should a Muslim want to become a citizen of a secular, pluralist, non-Muslim state; and why should that state’s non-Muslim citizens want to have him accepted as one of them.
The answer is inseparable from the fact that a person’s Islamic faith and outlook are incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are implicit in the oath of citizenship, and absolutely essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government.
It is to be hoped that the acceptance of other proposed measures would lead to a swift and irreversible reduction in the burgeoning number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. The remnant would have to be registered with the Attorney General and subjected to all legal limitations and security supervision strictures that apply to other quasi-religious cults prone to violence.
Conditio sine qua non all along is to accept and declare that the First Amendment does not protect Jihadists. It is in the American tradition that nothing ought to protect those who advocate the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, and, at bottom, that is what the Jihadists are up to. Legal regulators need to grasp that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to American values and institutions.
No court in a democratic country should uphold the constitutionality of any measure targeted at a particular religion quia religion. But if the facts were known about what is going on in mosques, and what is the nature and goal of worldwide Jihad, the necessary legal regulation may be accomplished. The First Amendment protection to political speech should not extent to Sharia, period. We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment; we need an educational campaign.
The dominant view in the academy and in the courts is that any thought or political idea ought to be protected, so the educator’s job is to convince legislators that we are dealing with a new phenomenon more dangerous even than anarchism, fascism or communism. As our Legal Affairs Editor Stephen Presser points out,
If that is ever done, then the precedents from 1903 or 1920 basically kick in, and the Jihadists get perceived not as exercisers of First Amendment rights, but as dangerous subversives. Anyone trying to do that will have to plunge into the thicket of what a religion actually is, however, and the Courts are notoriously unclear on that.
A radically new form of legal clarity on Islam’s nature is needed before the acceptance of our proposals becomes reality.
On the bright side, the proposed measures are politically eminently feasible. In a study conducted a year ago to determine the public attitude to terrorism, a half of respondents polled nationally said they believe the U.S. government should curtail civil liberties for American citizens who are Muslim. It should be noted that they do so in spite of the efforts of an elite class that never tires of assuring us that we are dealing with the “religion of peace and tolerance!” When it comes to visa moratoriums for Muslim non-citizens, the picture is even more encouraging.
The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the strategic ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haigh, Pétain, or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held their ranks and positions. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This old cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.
Acceptance of these proposals would represent the long overdue beginning of serious Western defense against Islamic terrorism. It would signify the recognition that we are in a life-or-death struggle. It is being waged, on the Islamic side, with the deep conviction that the West is on its last legs, spiritually, morally, and biologically. That view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed in mortal peril. Even at this late stage a recovery is possible, however, and the suggested measures would herald that recovery.
This article is partly based on the final chapter of Dr. Trifkovic’s latest book, Defeating Jihad, which will be published by Regina Orthodox Press (Boston) on March 1, 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
...here's another one...
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/muslimadvance.aspx
The Muslim Advance and American Collaboration, 1998
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And just why must I do that???
I dont expect my Jewish brethren to wish me a merry Christmas nor my Buddhist brethren or any other group that is not of my religious persuasion--by the same token I do not feel compelled to wish them a happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or whatever
I am a Christan I celebrate Christmas
I am tired of the percentage of the population that feels that I should be ashamed or feel guilty for doing do.
If you choose not to celebrate Christmas--don't do so so
But you have no right to tell me I can't or even worse celebrate it while pretending I'm not, by substituting a ubiquitous Happy Holidays instead of a heartfelt Merry Christmas.
If you don't want to hear Merry Christmas come out of my mouth--Don't talk to me--
And As for the clerks in the stores "thank you Ma'am have a nice day" works just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
Merry Christmas to one and all and if you don't like it go back to were you came from or let me say Merry Christmas and if i want a Holiday Tree i will have it on Arbor Day I will set my Christmas Tree tommorow weather you like it or not
oh and by the way happy whatever day that you celebrate to you. i don't really think that you should be able give me any flack so i don't expect any from you! peace
Edited by coolchefLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Garthness, would it be okay if I started calling you Madeline Murray O'Garth?
If you'd been such a zealous proseletyzer in twi, I'm pretty doggone sure there'd be a statue of you in the Wowzah Auditorium. The plaque on the base would read, "Garth, King of PFAL Sign-ups."
Now, seriously, come on. Is anyone is making you celebrate Christmas? Can't others simply enjoy it without it bothering you? Or do you just like to stir the pot?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I (for one), never equated Christmas as unique to THIS country (USA) and it's leanings toward Christianity
(whether or not we were founded on such -- as is discussed ad infinitum here at GSC).
But I do celebrate Christmas, and none of the other *holidays*.
Also I fully support other's who wish to celebrate the holiday of their choosing.
I don't tell them that their holidays are worthless (even though I may think so),
so I expect reciprocal treatment (even though they may think mine is worthless).
How hard is that, eh?? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I love all these responses. Really I do.
For one thing, the amusement value in them as to all the assumptions made and rigidly held to by people who think they are being attacked, when no such attack is really taking place. 
Templelady,
You know what the problem is? It is that others of different beliefs want to share, _share_ mind you, in celebrating Christmas, but in their *own* way, and have that as part of society and its doings, and many religious Christians act as if they are being persecuted, like their religious beliefs and greetings are being forbidden.
Guess what? They aren't! At all! There is NO store that forbids you or anyone else from saying "Merry Christmas". There is NO law doing such. There is NO organization doing such. I dare you to document to me where this sort of behavior happens, AND where they aren't being sued out of existence. ... Guess what? You ain't gonna find it. Period. And for the people who want you to 'feel ashamed or guilty' for saying Merry Christmas, ... well, since when did their opinions really matter to you in the first place, hmmmm?
Dave,
Ditto!
Linda,
I have been posting on Greasespot for what, over 6 years now, and you have seen a-plenty of my posts ranging from topic A to topic Z. And you have seen me post on Waydale before that. So, I would think that you, more than most here, should be familiar with my mode of posting, particularly in regards to things I believe in. True, I am not the most diplomatic SOB here, but I remain rather consistant in posting in that respect. Actually take out 2 seconds and think about this, will you please, and you will realize that. So spare me the song-and-dance ranging from "zealous proseletyzer" to "Garth, King of PFAL Sign-ups." and the like. And no, nobody is making me celebrate Christmas, ... but then again, when did I actually say that, hmmm? For a more _clear_ in-a-nutshell interpretation of what my original and succeeding posts in this thread are, read (clearly) the last paragraph, ok?
Waterbuffalo,
May I ask what the patriotic factor of Muslims have to do with this topic? :unsure:
In any event, I just have to laugh at people's anal retentiveness re: this topic. They see persecution and restrictions where there are none or not enough to write home about. Like I said before, There is NO store that forbids you or anyone else from saying "Merry Christmas". There is NO law doing such. There is NO organization doing such. Yet folks of other beliefs want to celebrate Christmas in their own way, and have that practice accepted in society, and religious Christians go apes**t. It's like a little spoiled *brat* who will not share any of his toys _ever_. ... Yeah! Right! Classic example of Christian love and godliness? <_<
I stand by what I say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Hmmm, I like to think it is a season for generosity and good cheer, bringing some beautiful light into the darkness. Christmas, Yule, Hannukah, why does it have to be a competition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
darn i thought this was going to be about gifts !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hills Bro
Sheesh !! I don't get here much of late so what do I see first on my return. GARTHs topic that seemss to take a jab at Christmas. His typical political left leaning spin stuff. It's Chritmas and most Americans are enjoying the season so why not spread the anti -Christmas left leaning stuff. I can't believe he actually believes his party is better than the other. I guess he just likes jumping from one brain washing cult, TWI ,to another, the DNC.
Garth,come on, why not join the ranks of the 95.430 % of Americans that are employeed and get a life. My Christmas gift to you is ADVICE: there are NO true public servants on either side of the isle in the ranks of the elected. Honest politics is an oxymoron. So get up ..walk away from your puter and get out into the real high definition life where the honest folk live without political nametags but real honest to God homespun common sense.
As long as you chose to turn this public forum into one of your political platforms and bring in your political correct Christmas cheer. I think I will follow your lead:
Enjoy: maybe I'll stop in after Christmas and see what Garths political spin will be on St. Patricks Day.
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html#
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !!!
Edited by Hills BroLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Hills bro!...Long time no see, good to read one of your posts again...hope life is treating you well...
Happy holidays my friend... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Yes, Garth, I guess consistent is one word for it.
I'd say more, but I don't want to engage in:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay so let is analyze this statement.
It's your birthday
There is a group of people who want to come to your party
However, They insist the following strictures be put in place
You are not to be acknowledged
no one can sing you happy birthday
In fact, no one can even acknowledge its a birthday party at all
UHHH--------
Nope, doesn't cut it
the reality is that I and countless others who are Christians celebrate Christmas
My Wicca and Pagan brethren celebrate the solstice
the rest of you are--
Having an excuse to get together and eat too much , exchange gifts, and enjoy a paid day off work ( in most cases)
IS that a bad thing? --of course not
But you aren't sharing in Christmas
you are simply having a big party on the same day
and as such--your party is just another party
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
and what may i ask is wrong with a party?? merry christmas temple lady
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Templelady,
Your 'analysis' is flawed for the following reasons:
1) Dec. 25th is NOT Christ's birthday. Nobody really knows when it is exactly, but some scholars (y'know, those who have done quite a bit of studying more than the average churchgoer?) place it around fall, while others place it in springtime. (Then there was TWI who placed it squarely on Sept. 11th, and we all know how flawed they are.
)
2) Many people acknowledge Christ (on his 'supposed' birthday), and some do not. And even among those who do acknowledge him, apparently they are acknowledging this bearded fat guy in a red suit who is at his party a LOT more.
3) Songs and noels are still being sung about Jesus. It's just that those songs are outnumbered by "Rocking around the Christmas tree!"
and like current tunes, ... again, many times by those who acknowledge Christ.
4) And this (supposed) not acknowledging that this is a birthday of sorts, again, is just not true. There is that type of acknowledging portrayed all over the place.
See, that's the Christmas side of the equation. Winter Solstice, which is what this time of year originally celebrated, so FAR precedes Christmas, it isn't even funny. And yet when that is brought into the picture, or any other non-Christian celebration of this time of year, it is automatically, blindly, and without question, presumed to be an aggressive attempt to drive out Christmas or anything related to Christ. Presumed. W/o question. ... as in, not thinking.
And people say that *I'm* anal, and oversensitive? It's well known that people talk about 'political correctness' run amok, like Hills attempt to portray me doing this very thing in this thread, evidently w/o even considering what I wrote or why. ("GARTHs topic that seemss to take a jab at Christmas." clearly illustrates this.) ... Nope. Gotta take the easy way out and whine and label it 'political correctness'.
Actually, this virulant reaction that I speak against is the religious version of 'political correctness'. Why do I call it that? Because it is 'politically incorrect' to try to celebrate anything non-Christian on Christmas, regardless of any valid reason for doing so. I mean, look at how many are knee-jerk reacting here to my initial post, which is largely humorous in nature. So yes Hills, one doesn't have to be a secular leftist 'commie' to play the 'politically correct' game.
I got a challenge to all here who are up in arms about the 'taking Christ out of Christmas', mmm-kay? Take stock of how you celebrate Christmas and what you celebrate with. If it largely involves Santa Claus, "Rocking around the Christmas tree", going to the stores "to buy our big-screen TVs and dress our daughters like whores", (maybe thats one of the parts that some here find offensive, y'think?
), and pigging out on Xmas turkey, then you really don't have much to whine about 'taking Christ out of Christmas'; ... not really. 
However, if it is heavily into Christ's birth, his salvation of all mankind, religious hymns & church services, and the like, okay then you have a basis to complain about 'taking Christ out of Christmas', ..... but that is only in regards to fellow Christians who say that they celebrate the 'Christ' in Christmas, ... but don't.
As regards to the rest of us blasphemous and unbelieving heathen who have the mitigated gaul to 'assault Christmas' by going around with 'Happy Holidays', 'Happy Winter Solstice' and the like, ... as Sgt. Hulka would say, "Lighten up, Frances!".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I celebrated Christmas (uh, that's Karisumasu) in Japan one year. Seemed just about the same as here -crassly commercial, overindulgent, and basically meaningless.
There's an urban legend that in the '50s there was a Karisumasu display in one of the major Tokyo department store windows that showed a smiling Santa Claus nailed to a cross. I think that embodies just about everything the holiday stands for. A phony feel-good charitable attitude, borrowed symbology - the true meanings of which are never questioned and long since lost to history, and a mindless quest to buy, buy, buy.
Why couldn't we just go back to the good 'ol days and have a few bonfires, gorge ourselves on pig's head, and maybe sacrifice a few virgins? Geeze, nobody's got any respect for tradition anymore...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.