Posted on 07/15/2007 4:20:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Is there not a cause? ~ David (c. 1040 B.C.)
Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils ... nor, I think, will the human race.
~ Plato ("The Republic" 473c-d)
Bombs, bullets and soldiers alone will never stop al-Qaida, Hezbollah, radical Islam and their religious fanatical jihad against Judaism, Christianity and the West. Why? Because Islam is an idea, a belief, a philosophy, a worldview, a religion that over a billion and a half people follow and live their daily lives by.
Islam determines what Muslims think, hear, value, believe ... even die for. Islam is what a billion and a half Muslims have banked their eternal destiny on and more than not will gladly give their lives to assure a Muslim world, as painfully witnessed recently in the terrorist bomb plots at London's West End and Scotland's Glasgow Airport where so far six of the eight suspects detained are respected, upper-class Muslim medical doctors.
We must change philosophy (religion) by philosophy.
This isn't an original idea. Remember that the first thing the victorious Allies did after conquering Hitler and his Nazis during World War II was to institute a comprehensive "de-Nazification" program to change the thinking of all Germans away from Nazi fanaticism and anti-Semitism to a representative democracy, establishing a republic based on the legal/moral paradigm of the rule of law and a Constitution. A similar program was enacted by Gen. Douglas MacArthur to convert the Japanese masses away from the maniacal fanaticism of Emperor Worship, which existed for over 1,000 years. Sixty years later, Japan stands as a faithful ally of America and a bulwark republic in an area rife with Communist dictatorships and growing Islamic hegemony.
Why wouldn't a formal policy of religious conversion, "de-Islamatization" if you will, work for a U.S. president that's got the guts, vision, leadership and ability to do it? The critics will prattle: "The Muslim faith is a religion of peace, not war"; "All Muslims aren't bad"; "The Muslims will call us 'Crusaders.'" Let us prove them right, not by reclaiming or conquering Muslim lands, but neutralizing the radical elements of their religion at the meta (intellectual) level by spreading our Judeo-Christian traditions – traditions that are infinitely more compatible with a democratic-republic form of government than any form of Islam, which, I wrote in an earlier column, is incompatible with a republic.
I know to some readers this sounds a bit radical, Pollyannaish and naïve, but hear me out. Look at what Muslim countries do to our Judeo-Christian beliefs. There is an explicit, unified and purposeful strategy to forbid strictly the Bible, Christian literature or proselytizing of any kind in virtually all Muslim countries at pains of capital punishment – the most egregious and overt being Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the war on terror. Yet the Muslims can build mosques in America and in the West as fast as Saudi Arabia, Iran or some other Muslim country, or terrorist organization, sends them the funds. The result: Genocidal Islam grows right here in America, while Judeo-Christianity dies a slow death on the vine due to 150 years of neglect and failure to use the world's greatest religion as a viable domestic and foreign policy strategy and geopolitical export to the nations of the world.
The crux of the argument is: Can a secular liberal democracy ever defeat genocidal Islamic jihad against the West? I answer no. The problem with the war on terror is that we are asking the wrong people for their expert opinion to deal with the West's vexing problems of worldwide terrorism.
In the fourth century before Christ, the Greek philosopher Plato, in his magnum opus, "The Republic," had the same dilemma and criticism with his view of history up to that time and even with the rulers of his day. Plato's contention was that a competent, well-rounded ruler needed, besides a thorough grounding in the military arts, mathematics and music, to also have a meticulous foundation in philosophy. The Greeks called this curriculum The Quadrivium. The ideal leader needed to be a philosopher-king.
Why? Because philosophers understood better than, say, a military commander, a senator, a well-connected Athenian, "guardians" (officers/soldiers) or "merchants" (business owners/producers), the intricacies of human nature, of mankind's predilections, perversities, prejudices and what makes them do certain things under certain situations. Moreover, a philosopher, because he is a deep thinker and spends much of his time contemplating the particulars of human nature, would be better equipped to come up with a viable solutions to America's rhetorical "war on terror."
Earlier this year in a surprise debate with a former liberal professor of hers, Dr. Mary Grabar made the following prescient remarks on Plato:
I think that's a big misconception about "The Republic." In the literature, the claim is often made that Plato was advocating a totalitarian government. But my understanding is that the dialogue is not to be taken literally. Rather, the philosopher-king is the reluctant ruler, motivated not by ego or personal gain. His motivation is the love of wisdom and justice. These ideas, indeed, form the basis for our republican form of government, in contrast to a popular democracy ruled by the masses. You may recall Thrasymachus. … Speaking as a philosopher, I am convinced that America's current military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only ineffective, but generates increasing numbers of fanatical Muslims championing jihad – something to die for.
No wonder our cause in the war on terror is lost before it begins and will only get worse unless President Bush and his war advisers start reading (and following) the enduring and wise admonitions of Plato's "Republic" and begin fighting a war of ideas, a war of philosophy, a religious war against the Muslim infidels like those battles waged by the great philosopher-kings of old – in primeval times when Christian monarchs like Charles "the Hammer" Martel (686-741), Charlemagne (742-814), Richard the Lionhearted (1157-99), Elizabeth I (1533-1603), Jan III Sobieski (1629-96) and Peter the Great (1672-1725) all fought so valiantly against the Muslim menace, face to face.
As President Bush implements his ill-fated military "surge" in Iraq, I wish he understood that he doesn't need more troops to be sent to this 21st century Vietnam; he needs one adviser that has read Plato's "Republic" to give him a crash course on how to follow the tried and true strategies of the magnificent philosopher-king.
Three thousand years ago, David, a future philosopher-king, was born. A young, anonymous Jewish boy on the back hills of Judea asked his king as the armies of Israel cowered in fear before the dreadful Philistine giant, Goliath, the simple but sublime question: "Is there not a cause?" That same teenage boy took a rag and a rock, ran onto the battlefield to confront this 9-foot-9-inch infidel giant, popped him in the head with his slingshot, killing him, and chopped off his head with Goliath's own sword. Now, in my humble opinion, that boy was a real man! Would to God that America, Britain, Israel and all nations of good will had a philosopher-king to deliver us this day from our two greatest enemies – liberalism and Islamic hegemony.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ellis Washington, former editor at The Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002). See his law review article "Reply to Judge Richard Posner." Washington has just completed the manuscript to his latest book, "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust" (2007).
Time to fire up a 21st century Crusade.
We’re not using swords and trebuchets this time.
Our efforts in the ME are changing the world. We are neutralizing and removing NS threats in the short-term....while at the same time starting the needed process of dragging the ME out of the dark ages for the long haul...(and of course! such a venture is not going to go without mistakes and misjudgments)...
And there is some similarities to our current immigration issue (curiously enough). That being, we are never going to mass deport over 12 million people.....The same holds true that we are not going to magically make all Muslims like us over night....nor are we going to kill all of them...
What we need to do in both cases....Is create an atmosphere which encourages and allows for a type of self-deportation....In that States that means restrictions and difficulties enough that make the choice of self-deportation back to one's "home" country the most attractive option.
And in the Iraq (ME) it means creating an atmosphere were there is a self-deporatation away from radical Islam in the beginning..(and perhaps away from Islam all together as time passes). Where freedom goes the truth will follow.
In one sense, Iraq was a good candidate for liberalization. While Saddam was a real brute, nonetheless, women and certain religious minorities had rights in that nation they did possess in other Islamic nations. In other words, the process of “liberalization” was going on apace in that nation. Unfortunately, Iraq has a large Shiite minority, which is definately a fly in the ointment.
Not so.
they asked for it years ago
and we did not respond
They are, however, proceeding without us
I believe all bets are off if America is attacked on a scale equal to or greater than 911. Americans are well armed, and if Americans feel threatened, I have no idea how the majority would handle that 'feeling'. I would be very worried if I were a muslim or mex. I am not a muslim or mex, and I am worried. Americans believe they have been betrayed by their own leaders, and the leaders coming forth are a grave concern to some (not all) Americans. The only question to be answered is will Americans sit still if attacked inside our borders again? Not being able to tell the future, I do not know, but the muslims and mex may want to have a plan to leave quickly, if an attack occurs.
Bush is bringing Iraqis into the United States. The city I live near is going to get many. They won't stay here though, they will just grab their free college degree courtesy of the US tax payer and then move to Michigan.
Bush and Clinton have brought in so many moslems and have plunked them around the Great Lakes. I hope the muzzies do not change the name of the Lake Michigan to lake mohammed or something. There are way too many moslems in the US.
Islamists delenda est...
...even how to wipe - a long step by step process. I do not jest.
It is not so much a religion as a system of brain washing - almost to the point of being under constant hypnotism - the trigger to keep them "under" - the 5 times a day the bells and callers call for them to play mass stink bug.
It's that simple.
I wonder if a Muslim were taken to where they would not hear the call 5 times a day, wouldn't they soon forget to do it - or, if they didn't have to fear being turned in (as they can be now) for not putting nose to ground 5 times a day. how long would keep up the practice? And would they not come out from under the mind controlled existence and become human?
On another note - it isn't shown by our media, but our troops in Iraq ARE showing a different way of life is possible along with the fighting.
They have, for one example, started Boy Scout Troops = and the young boys are soaking it up with laughing, joyful faces that you would see in any Scout Jamboree here. They are learning the "the Infidels" are not the monsters they have been taught - ditto the adults with whom our troops interact - invited to homes for dining, etc - That is changing a lot of minds and one reason the tide is turning. But the MSM and the libRats are hoping the American public don't see this side.
Islam, I contend, is not a religion - it is a system of mass mind control. Why does no one dare say it?
Spot on
It runs counter to American thinking to attempt to ban a religious belief or to force one on people. All the “state” can rightfully do is to enforce behavior (through both positive and negative reinforcement) it cannot force values/morality/belief on anyone.
A more obtainable goal would be to strictly force and enforce “freedom of religion and conscience.” We should never have allowed countries we conquered in our interests and security - which is what we did and we should not be squimish about saying so - to establish any form of government that made Islam the state religion. We should insist that all religious (or non-religious athiest) beliefs must be allowed to exist without fear of attack by competitors. It should be the goal of the “established” government to use the power of the sword to punish and suppress those that don’t allow the free exercise (or non-exercise) of the religious dictates of an individual’s conscience. Within reason of course - I wouldn’t want the government to protect a religion that practiced human sacrifice, etc.
In this type of environment, I am confident that over time, Judeo/Christian values will take hold and eventually dominate. I don’t believe in forcing anyone to personally except Christianity (which is only an individual choice), only in forcing them to allow it to be propagated on an even playing field and to provide the practictioners with the protection of the state. However, the same protection must be provided to all peacefull beliefs the same. If Muslims want to spread Islam, as long as it isn’t an anti-government Jihadist sect, it should also enjoy the protection of the state. All that will practice their religious beliefs in peace with others should be protected equally.
In regards to Radical Jihadist Islam....We should use their beliefs against them in any way we can. Those that would destroy us deserve no protection only the sword.
I thought the Shiites were the majority in Iraq, with the Sunnis and Kurds, etc. being the minorities.
Kill funding to madrassas and imams, and kids would have to actually learn a useful trade
"Let's Roll"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.