The Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1880) by William-Adolphe Bouguereau The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. (from here)
The Flagellation of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1880) by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.
The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it.  (from here)

Why are the United States and Western Europe having so much trouble assimilating new immigrants? When I read this article, it occurred to me that here was part of the answer, at least.

Muslims around the world know that America is a Judeo-Christian country and its Constitution has been based on those canons. They also know that this Constitution respects all faiths, does not force Christianity on the citizens and allows freedom of worship.

It is also a fact that like all others, the Muslims who have immigrated to the United States came knowing in advance that this country was founded by Europeans with Western values, traditions and culture. Yet they stood in long lines, filled out long forms and waited, some for years, to get the green light to come to America. They all took the oath of allegiance to become a citizen and all they expected was freedom and opportunity for a better life.

Many of these Muslims, including Iranians, are secular and fled to America because the Islamic rulers mistreated them and took away their freedoms, equality and human dignity. They came to live in democracy free from Shariah law in a country where religion is separated from the state.

Others came because they were condemned to live in poverty, ignorance and hopelessness. The corrupt Islamic homeland did not provide them with economic security, jobs and a better future for their children. They came to have the opportunity to work and feel proud as a sovereign human being, providing their children a future to grow and prosper. They are grateful for the opportunity that they would have never had in the Islamic homeland.

However, as time goes on, they become indoctrinated by Americans to hate America, they are told that this is not the great country they had envisioned. They listen to National Public Radio and MSNBC and are told by their new compatriots, how unjust this country is. At work they learn from the ideologues that the 1 percent is in charge of this country. They are taught that white people are racists and discriminate against every non-white, and they are now living under the unjust privileged white. (continued here)

This article raised two questions in my mind.

  • Why would anyone want to become part of (adopt the character and beliefs) a nation of people who loath themselves?
  • Why do parents choose to put people who loath themselves in charge of their children? Don’t they realize these people will teach their children to loath themselves?

Finally, one other observation. It is common for those ignorant of Christianity to teach that Christians loath themselves. While it is true that Christians admit they are sinners, Christians also have reason for hope and joy that far outweighs any sense of shame. We know that God loves us. We know that Jesus died for us, that because of His sacrifice our sins are forgiven. We know that because He is worthy, and He loves us, we each have inestimable worth.


  1. mastersamwise is typical of the left in that he believes the kitman about kitman (the phrase is often rendered as “taquiyya about taquiyya,” but this confuses compulsion for strategy and uses a word specific to Shias for a concept common to all major Islamic sects).

    The hadith of the prophet on this subject would be profitable for mastersamwise to read. Unless he thinks that the Qur’an and al Hadith and Sunnah are “misconceptions.”

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


  2. You demonstrate repeatedly that you “really had no idea” — about assimilation, about taqiyya, about national control of education through unions and standards and metrics, or even “what it means to be an American.”

    But you would control people for their own good.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Wow. Very good. Considering my rants on Immigration, this is a needed perspective. The Syrian “refugees” nonetheless, are a danger. Others will use our own laws to undermine us (Islam allowing them to lie to all “infidels” to obtain their objectives, among them, a caliphate here) are aided and abetted by our Rogue Government.
    I linked back to you here:

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Islam allowing them to lie to all “infidels” to obtain their objectives, among them, a caliphate here” Huh, I really had no idea how widespread this misconception was.


        1. Your misconception is that Islam, in the most general sense of the word, allows its adherents to lie and that they want to set up a caliphate here. You do realize that the Islamic world is of several differing opinions whether a caliph is even possible at this point right?


  4. Moderation. It takes generations to assimilate into a country. Congress has approved too many, too soon, and the result is too many seperate faction
    al interests that now serve to create dissention and breakdown of social order and national unity in my opinion.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. From a national security perspective, IAs–independent actors–in the US are overwhelmingly the children or grandchildren of immigrants.

    Also, it is not the American school system or whatever the cacodemon the author was conjuring that tends to radicalize. Instead, it is largely propaganda issued from outside the country that outlines the moral incongruities of America. For example, they will point out that America allows gay marriage and therefore is an abomination. If you really look at their literature, they operate on the premise that they hold the moral high ground.

    As for self-loathing, there should always be what is called an examination of conscience. As a nation, we bear collectively the sins of a nation. We, as a nation, must answer for any sins we commit. But, like you said Tom, in admitting our faults, we can hope for something greater.


    1. Usama bin Ladin complained bitterly about the lack of US campaign finance reform and the failure of US authorities to adequately address global warming. You can find all sorts of things they use to hate us and to justify our destruction and subjugation. But a better authority for this, and one that UbL and other jihadist authorities source from, is Qutb’s Milestones. His visit to the US in the 1940s convinced him — and ultimately the whole Muslim Brotherhood — that the US must be destroyed.

      But the issue boils down to a simple one: We are the leading not-Muslims.

      By the way, speaking of jihadist positions on America: In a sort-of October Surprise in 2004, UbL came out essentially supporting the Democratic campaign platform of John Kerry. Much of this was not relayed to the US audience, as the alignment between jihadists and Democrats was a bit too obvious.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The vast majority of information or propaganda any American receives comes from American sources. Our education system and mass media serve as the primary conduits of the information we receive. Is that information accurate? Does it realistically portray America as a relatively decent country? Given our president has felt obliged to go on more than one apology tour, including to Muslim nations, I think the obvious answer is no.

      Do we answer to God for our sins as a nation? I think the Bible would support the contention that we do. However, thus far God has blessed us. Will we continue to be so blessed? Here of late the moral character of our nation definitely leaves something to be desired. However, the sort of self-loathing that article referred to had almost nothing to do with our actual sins, and the answer is repentance, not self-loathing to the point of self destruction.


      1. “The vast majority of information or propaganda any American receives comes from American sources.” We can agree to disagree on that point since we may have different definitions of propaganda in this case. From a national security point of view, the majority of anti-American propaganda that agitates IAs comes from outside the US.

        ” Our education system and mass media serve as the primary conduits of the information we receive.” Only insofar as the parents neglect their duty to educate their children. In other words, if you abandon your child to be educated by the state, don’t complain when they have a state education.

        “Given our president has felt obliged to go on more than one apology tour, including to Muslim nations, I think the obvious answer is no.” In Catholic liturgies the world over, each service begins with a prayer where the whole congregation admits their sins. This introspection before ascending to worship God is important in a civil sense. We as a nation should have such introspection, considering the times we have done wrong. I am not saying that the president is right; I have no opinion on it really. What I AM saying is that apologies are not a denigration of anything. When you apologize, you admit your fault because you have the virtue to admit it regardless of likelihood of it being well received. Removing that beam is not only necessary, but noble as it shows the strength we have to look at ourselves critically.

        This becomes even more important when we know, as you said, that we are judged as a nation and need to foster a strong moral character. Blessed are the humble of heart, for they will inherit the whole earth.

        It is also important to have this introspection in order to determine our actual sins and stave off the inclination to self-deprecation.


        1. Obama is a religious leader? Did we elect him to admit our sins and give everyone else our nation’s wealth?

          Would you mind giving Mark 12:17 some thought? Obama is not even suppose to be Caesar. He just suppose to be the first among equals. He is just suppose to do what the Constitution says the president is suppose to do, and he isn’t doing that.


          1. Again, I have no opinion on Obama’s actions. Yet every leader should follow the example of David and admit the wrongs he and the people have done.

            Yes, give to Caesar what is Caesar but give to our neighbor what is our neighbor’s.


          2. “I am not saying that the president is right; I have no opinion on it really. What I AM saying is that apologies are not a denigration of anything. When you apologize, you admit your fault because you have the virtue to admit it regardless of likelihood of it being well received. Removing that beam is not only necessary, but noble as it shows the strength we have to look at ourselves critically.”

            I don’t see how anything I said resembles the comedic acts of Danny Kaye of Reggie Watts, but if you mean double speak i.e. speech that is deceptively ambiguous, then I must disagree. I was quite unambiguous when I said that I have no opinion on the president’s apologies when I said, as reposted above. “I am not saying that the president is right; I have no opinion on it really.”

            If you contend that my maxim about rendering to one’s neighbor his due is ambiguous, I would retort that it is plainly in the Gospel.
            “Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

            “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” And again, “Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”

            How are we as a nation to stand upright when we are weighed down with our sins? Therefore, whatever evil we do, we must beg forgiveness as we were commanded. Is this not one of the most basic Christian principles? Is not America a Christian nation?

            Render to those we have wronged our compunction. It not only satisfies God, but also satisfies natural justice.


    3. The American nationally-controlled school system tends to teach against assimilation, and toward self-loathing. This produces the fertile ground in which the seeds of Islamic activation may grow.

      One of the teachings of Islam, the political system, is that independent of country, race or ethnicity, one is always a Muslim first and foremost. This takes perfect advantage of the US government’s stated goal of downplaying assimilation of immigrants into an American culture, which the US government evidently considers a negative, white-controlled, Eurocentric culture to be denigrated. The intentional derogation of assimilation was revealed during a White House conference call with reporters and immigration activists.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Self-loathing is actually a natural consequence of the belief in multiculturalism, that all cultures are equally valid. While it is rational to be tolerant and be willing to live in a society that hosts multiple cultures, it is irrational to value all cultures equally. In fact, we don’t.

        So why do our schools promote multiculturalism then? These people hate the traditional American culture. They want a world of their own design, but America’s traditions teaches a respect for Christian values and for individual rights. That tradition is counter to their Utopian dreams.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. In the conference calls associated with Obama’s task force on replacing Americans, they stressed that the focus would be away from assimilation and toward navigation of the government systems for benefits:

          It is not that it takes generations to assimilate. That time can be short or long, depending upon motivation and circumstances. Obama is motivated to prevent it from happening at all, since an assimilated American might well be a conservative. (A good friend of mine from Ecuador registered as a Republican the day she got her US citizenship.)

          Obama’s stated rationale against assimilation is that American culture strips these immigrants of their own culture, and robs diversity. He considers this bad, as the culture itself is bad (racist, exclusionary, unequal et cetera, a al Howard Zinn).

          Of course, the real goal is to register approximately ten million new Democrat voters before November’s election, and that has been stated explicitly.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Serious question: what is ” traditional American culture?” If it is as varied and nebulous as the word Christian nowadays, how can there be clear consensus on these values?


          1. Consider what you are demanding. You demand a consensus of your own design. Liberal Democrats demand conformity to the needs of their system, what they worship.

            The Founding Document of this country is the Declaration of Independence. It speaks of God-given rights. In defense of a diversity of beliefs, traditional America defended those God-given rights.

            Our government now wants to confine the practice of Christianity to private closets. Liberal Democrats and RINOs would replace God-given rights with government gifts.


          2. ” You demand a consensus of your own design.” I demand a definition is all. What are traditional American values?

            I am certain we have gone down this road before, but if traditional American values are life, liberty, and happiness, then how are they defined and why should a diversity of beliefs agree with those definitions?


      2. Nationally controlled is a generous statement. Do you know why calls to repeal Common Core at the federal level is absolutely stupiud? Because Common Core is adopted by the individual states. Half of them don’t have it and some only implemented part of it. Viriginia actually argued that their SOLs were already aligned or surpassed CC standards.

        My point is that there is no nationally controlled school system in that there is some national organization dictating curriculum. Don’t believe me? Go to a school board meeting.

        That said, there is a lot to loathe and I wish they would teach loathing of the right things. Instead it tends to be the same quasi-libertarian views of self-determinate nonsense that inspired such great movements as the sexual revolution and OWS. In short, the problem with education is not whatever the federal, state, or even local governments mandate; teachers and administrators tend to fight for their autonomy more than is discussed. Rather, their is a cultural aversion to say anything with any certainty for fear of trampling on someone’s notion of individuality. Sure, we hear about these cases of “Christian persecution” in public schools but not only are these cases isolated, they are largely exaggerated and inflated for political objectives. The truth is that it is far easier for lazy parents, teachers, and administrators to ban everything they can so everyone can move on in their individual bubble of individual thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.

        One of the teachings of Catholicism is that a Catholic is a Catholic first and foremost and that all other considerations are not only secondary, but actually to be despised if they conflict with Catholic teaching. This is why, when the Irish came to America, folks like Lyman Beecher thought it suitable to protest these papists who would come and subjugate good, Protestant America to evil Rome.

        It would seem that you take the line of the likes of Ann Coulter who, in reference to my ancestors, said the Irish Roman Catholics became successful when they became more American and less Roman. This “assimilation” you speak of sound suspiciously like the battle cries of the nativists that burned down the Ursuline convent and lynched priests. In short, everyone has their own interests and some of those interests are different from yours. Deal with it. Why?

        You seem to want your cake and eat it too. You want individual liberty but you want everyone to share you idea of individual liberty. The two things are necessarily contradictory. If you take the classical liberal stance on individual liberty, you have each man being orthodox unto himself. No man is subject to another’s morals and beliefs. BUT what this means is that people who think differently are at perfect liberty to affect their point of view in government. If representative government is to be the authentic representation of a given people and that people are Muslim with the view you have, then necessarily, by our own philosophy, they have the legal right to affect whatever law they deem just along with your right to oppose such measures.

        You could say that they should have your point of view on liberty because that is what America is about and being an America necessitates that view. But again, we cannot, if we are to remain consistent with the principles of individual liberty as conceived in classical liberalism–I especially reference Kant and Locke here–then we can neither coerce nor convince someone of a certain view point. That would be exerting our doctrines over them and undermining their free use of their will.


        1. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and pick up talking points from leftist websites. I write education grants (among other types) professionally; I wrote three just last month. In these, I must demonstrate that my schools are completely compliant with national Common Core standards — and the Obama administration has implemented this requirement going back to the Race to the Top program I was writing proposals for in 2010.

          The Obama administration requires that these be “internationally benchmarked” standards — their phrase — and they have been. We are heading for dead last in the civilized world.

          But you’ve said here that Obama’s actions are noble and virtuous, and constantly denigrating America is a good thing because Catholics confess their sins. And you think that attacks on Christians are overblown politically.

          But here you’ve come out against assimilation — it sounds “nativist” to you. You oppose individual liberty, because I would be “forcing upon others” the idea that a person should be free to live his own life as long as he does not interfere with others’ rights. You find this abhorrent, and have said repeatedly that people must be controlled for the common good.

          In other words, you are an absolutely standard big-government statist progressive with a religious patina, pushing the Obama anti-America agenda and defending his actions at every turn.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Sure, certain grants require adherence to CC but the actual adoption thereof, as you must know, is determined by the state legislature. Beyond that, I made no further contention.

            “But you’ve said here that Obama’s actions are noble and virtuous, and constantly denigrating America is a good thing because Catholics confess their sins.” Actually no. I specifically stated that I have no opinion on the president’s actions. Rather, I said that the introspection of humility and the courage of compunction is necessary for a moral life and therefore noble and virtuous.

            I do think they are rather overblown when we have Christians in the Middle East being literally beheaded.

            Again, what do you define as assimilation and how does that definition jive with your concept of individual liberty? In practicality, if some group has belief A regarding rights and another has belief B, but the first group is larger, practically speaking, wouldn’t belief A win out? Without creating a thought police, how could you get everyone to have this same idea about rights?

            Yes. I consider the common good to be a more perfect good than the individual goods. If you read Aristotle more, you would find he has the same opinion. But since you clearly didn’t read him thoroughly enough–as evidenced by your article on natural virtues–my position is naturally abhorrent to you. Here is a good article that expresses my view point well and in the context of American politics.


          2. In practicality, if some group has belief A regarding rights and another has belief B, but the first group is larger, practically speaking, wouldn’t belief A win out?

            In which you demonstrate that you are fuzzy on the concept of a Constitutionally limited government. The US is not a democracy.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          3. No, but say that group A had the national majority and therefore took the majority in the legislature. What prevents them from implementing what they want consistent with their own ideas? Prohibition, for example, was constitutionally amended because the Temperance movement gained momentum that dominated the legislature. So even though the rest of the nation continued to drink, group A prevailed over group B until people found it intolerable and introduced group C which then dominated groups A and B.

            There are even more examples. The GOP revolution of 1994 was one. The dissolution of the Whig and rise of the Republicans was another.

            Again, there are examples for what I am speaking about. The national will went into a direction and the laws, within the constitutional framework, were enacted that reflected that.

            You also seem to have glossed over my other points.


          4. These were not mere majorities. The Constitutional amendment for prohibition pushed by the Progressives (including the KKK) was ratified by three-fourths of states at the time. Your confusion of this level of support for a “majority” spreads misunderstanding.

            That high barrier was intended to project minorities from the tyranny of a majority. It has generally worked reasonably well, and better than any other system thus conceived.

            The 1994 Contract with America devolved into a series of battles including government shutdowns and compromises. The general effect was quite positive, with Clinton ultimately taking credit for the beneficial effects of measures that he had bitterly opposed. But Constitutional protections or individual and state rights, while eroded by progressives over time, were still at least partially in place.

            That this has been damaged is something we need to address, and an Article V convention is the beginning of that process.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          5. Ok, it was a super majority. My point remains. If 3/4 of the nation is part of group A, then group B loses. The issue remains that whatever 3/4 of the nation says goes and unless you can get that sort of majority for your group, you pound sand. Your ideas have to wait for the next election.

            So into what are we assimilating when it takes only 3/4 of the populace to change what it means to be American?


          6. You haven’t defined what you mean by assimilation. Assimilation into what? According to what? And how does this assimilation remain consistent with you ideas of individual liberty?


          7. @mastersamwise

            Stop and think about this. Our public schools have four different layers of management: school boards, cities or counties, state government, and federal government.

            Funding with strings attached comes from local governments, state governments, and the Federal Government. You think the school boards run anything? They are too busy trying to figure out all the damn rules (That’s why there are so many administrators.) and keeping the teacher unions out of their hair.

            To top it off the Federal Government is stuffing expense the children of illegal aliens down our throats, just so the rich can have cheap labor. That is just plain sick.


          8. I will admit that there is plenty of regulation involved but my wife covered the school board for the newspaper. Sitting in on those meetings were the most boring but enlightening experiences. Everything from attendance polices to text books are decided at that level. Dress codes,

            I remember when I was 16, we went to protest Howard Zinn’s book being used in AP history. The school board acquiesced under pressure.

            Certainly there is friction between the various levels, but that does not mean the school board is powerless. They have power and that modicum of power is dearer than life to them.


          9. You may have noted that the school board supposedly runs the schools. However, they are so restricted by Federal, state, and local regs they cannot do much — except take the blame.


          10. Quite separate from No Child Left Behind, which local schools have complained of for years, the new replacement is ESSA, or the Every Child Succeeds Act.

            And many copies of Howard Zinn’s book have been distributed by the Obama administration, to schools across the country, through the OFA permanent taxpayer-paid self-promotion group.

            Zinn was quite a character, loved by the Left.

            ===|==============/ D. Keith Howington

            Liked by 1 person

          11. As are all things, but is this not what government is meant to do? To govern? Can any right be secured by any other means other than law? If so, when then have government? Clearly government is not necessary. But if we accept that human society must be regulated by laws to secure the freedoms we understand to have in common–prohibitions against murder, in theory, secure the right to life for example–then we must accept that each level of government must issue regulatory laws which are–and this is perhaps the most important part so please take note–PROPER TO their relative level.

            Whether or not there should be public education is another issue. Whether or not federal, state, and local governments should have a hand in the regulation of schools then the answer is yes.

            Now, you seem to be operating under the principle that the more a man is unrestricted by exterior forces, the more free he is. I disagree and thankfully, so does the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel teaches the subjugation of one’s will–freely of course but that isn’t the point–to the will of another. It is abiding by laws that one has no hand in legislating. In essence, it is surrendering every single ounce of what is called human freedom to a person who says doing so actually makes you free.

            If we take this notion that abiding by certain laws i.e. restricting the behavior of human persons is the highest form of freedom, then we can only deduce that, in order for a free society to be truly free, the society must be bound to certain restrictions. God, being the source of wisdom, is able to sum his entire legal code into two maxims only. Love me and love you neighbor. Nature, reflecting the divine law of the Creator, has several more but remains rather brief in its legis. Man, striving to reflect those two higher bodies of law and jurisprudence and bound by the necessities of every day life, will ultimately have a multitude of laws proper to level of government necessary to deal with the issue and the issue needed to regulate.

            Now, it can be said that several educational laws are bad in the senses I enumerated–i.e. they do not seek to resolve an issue of human behavior and/or are enacted at improper levels of government–but it cannot be said that no laws can be made on the issue.

            But this goes wildly off topic of the original point i.e. that the majority of propaganda, from a national security perspective, comes from outside the country. It can be said that, in a remote sense, certain instances have given cause for some to be disillusioned with American in the public school system but I would rebut that such disillusionment can come equally from small, Catholic, Liberal Arts colleges that are as anti-liberal as they come, preferring the conservatism of Kirk and MacIntyre over that of say Cruz or whatever intellectual mind dreamed up the current movement popularly called conservatism.


  6. I recently spent a year living in an apartment complex that was a Mecca for Muslims.

    Instead of smelling steak, Mexican or Chinese at dinner, curry wafted through the air (Pakistani Muslim cuisine).

    The little Muslim kids could be seen scampering about either on foot or bicycle, their voices ringing out in English.

    While at the same time, a Muslim man led his hijab-clad wife by a good 10 feet as they took their evening stroll.

    At my credit union, I spoke with the university educated branch manager, a Muslim woman about the decay of American civil society.

    I told her that it was the hope of our society was that both Muslims and Christians stand by their traditional values and teach them to their children.

    That way we could knit American culture back together again.

    She was amazed at my comment, but agreed whole-heartedly.

    Yes, inside every Muslim there’s an American just waiting to get out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I share much the same hope. I don’t have much use for the Koran, but Muslims are generally socially Conservative. So in many respects, Muslims are easier to get along with than the Socialism of Liberal Democrats, a group that also practices a religious belief hostile to religious freedom.


      1. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness conform to human nature.

        That is what makes America so attractive to those courageous enough to live free.

        Nearly every day I see, Communist Chinese (my present room mates), and devout Muslims (many of my classmates) exercise their right to follow their personal interests (the essence of capitalism), in spite of their almost complete indoctrination in anti-American ideas of communism and Islam.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, Tom, The Religious Right and the Muslem Right have much in common. Especially on their views regarding the separation of church and state. Actually, about the only thing they differ on is WHICH religion should be State established.


        1. @Eric the Half a Troll

          Working a being a full troll?

          When people people tell Social Conservatives not to squawk about social issues and to focus on fiscal issues, I roll my eyes. Why? The vast majority of the Federal Budget and state budgets is spent on social programs. Essentially, Liberal Democrats use government to force their value system on everyone else, and they are driving our country into bankruptcy doing it.

          To top it off, Liberal Democrats are forcing us to pay for abortions, corrupting our medical systems so that it euthanizes people, secularizing the education of children, redefining marriage to the point of meaningless, and so forth.

          So it is I find it difficult to choose between a Liberal Democrat and a Muslim advocating Sharia. It is the choice between a rock and a hard place.

          I also think your carping deserves multiple eye rolls.

          That the best you can do?


        2. @”Eric the Half a Troll,” who wrote:

          Yes, Tom, The Religious Right and the Muslem Right have much in common. Especially on their views regarding the separation of church and state. Actually, about the only thing they differ on is WHICH religion should be State established.

          Your assertions are unsupported and unsupportable.

          First, Islam is a leftist, statist political system. It was closely aligned with National Socialism during World War II, with Nazi affiliations and military support across the Arab world and even Persia renaming itself “Aryan” (Iran) at Hitler’s suggestion. The current Iranian regime was strongly Marxist influenced.

          The US right supports a Constitutionally limited government. While many Christians would like to see the government guided by Christian principles, no political leader is advocating that the “religion should be State established.” Not one. Whereas Islamic leaders across the world promote the establishment of Sharia law as the system to control all of life, and in the US to replace the Constitution.

          No US conservative political leader or pundit is pushing for the US Constitution to be replaced at all, let alone by a theocracy. There are many on the Left who are pushing to abandon the Constitution, and they would replace it by a new environmental catastrophism faith including punishments for sins against Gaia, including expressions of doubt in the faith.

          I am a lifelong non-theist, and I am keenly aware that the US’s founding was interwoven with expressions of support for, and support from, Christianity, which happily and voluntarily coexisted with government without issue for a century and a half before the decisions of the New Deal began a systematic attack on this relationship.

          The new faith, combining environmental catastrophism a sort of militant anti-Christianity, brooks no tolerance and no deviation, and considers even a mention of the Christian faith in the public sphere offensive. You teach young people to seek a “safe space” at mentions of diverse opinions, and you teach others to pursue legislation to stamp out such opinions.

          At the same time, the left seems perfectly happy to allow the expansion of jihadism and Shariah law, as if unaware that you will be their ultimate targets.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        3. “No US conservative political leader or pundit is pushing for the US Constitution to be replaced at all, let alone by a theocracy. ”

          @ Keith:

          At a “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference in February, 2005, D. James Kennedy, former pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, said:

          “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”


          1. If this is the “worst” example you have to offer, you are perforce agreeing with my assertion that “[n]o US conservative political leader or pundit is pushing for the US Constitution to be replaced at all, let alone by a theocracy.” Kennedy certainly did not — he explicitly disavowed the notion of a theocracy and was a supporter of the US Constitution.

            The point stands. And it is in stark contrast to those on the left, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama to Constitutional “scholars” like Louis Seidman in the New York Times who have long wanted to scrap the Constitution:

            Seidman and other Leftists including Democrat leader Donna Brazile consider the US Constitution “downright evil” because of the constraints it puts on Progressive schemes. Wilson had just the same complaint. And leftist media sees no problem with running up this sort of “trial balloon” to get the public used to the idea that this might be a good idea.

            Wanting Christianity to influence American life is no different in concept (though different in result!) from wanting progressivism to influence American life. The difference is that the left wants progressivism to control by dictate, whereas the right is NOT advocating for a theocracy. Kennedy and his ilk are mild indeed compared to Marcuse’s Frankfurt School disciples throughout American academia.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Eric the Half a Troll

            That is your proof? Godly dominion? Is that by force or persuasion?

            I think Keith observation stands. We can point to innumerable examples of Liberal Democrats (the busybody kind of Liberal, not the classical kind), breaking the Constitution to get what they want.


        4. Btw, Tom and Keith. In 2000, the Republican Party of Texas declared that it “affirms that the United States is a Christian nation.” We now have a State Religion according to the RP of T.


          1. The United States IS a Christian nation, in terms of the influences upon its founding. You point to a recent statement in Texas, but could have pointed to US Supreme Court rulings going back to the founding of the country.

            Nevertheless, it is not an exclusively Christian nation, and among the tenets keenly held is religious freedom. Thus, I as a non-theist am not threatened here.

            Actually I have been threatened, but by leftists, and it is because I do not ascribe to their faith either. And unlike my Christian friends, the left actively opposes the idea of tolerance.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Eric the Half a Troll

            If we had actually had a Christian theocracy, that would violate several precepts of Christian.
            1. Christians are not under the Law. Instead, we love with all our heart, soul, strength and mind, and we love our neighbor as we love our self. Hence, there isn’t exactly a set of rules we could use to form a Christian theocracy.
            2. As Keith observed, there are Christian principles. Because Jesus gives us a choice to follow Him, Christians affirm freedom of religion.
            3. The Bible affirms the need for a government and encourages Christians, when they do not put government before the God, to obey the authorities.

            Within the context of the first three bullets, Christians have an obligation to do their best to ensure that the government upholds Christian moral principles. That is within our First Amendment rights.


      3. You boys, “godly dominion” is far cry from “Christian influence”. Now I would like you to find a US political pundent who is openly advocating for an Islamic theocracy and an overthrow of the US Constitution.


        1. Lots of them, from Siddiqi to Rauf to Arian to most of the leadership of US Muslim Brotherhood organizations from CAIR to MSA to SJP to ISNA to NAIT.

          Many of these sound appropriately “pluralist” when speaking to Western audiences, but make their views clear enough in other contexts. And the overthrow of the US and all other governing system in favor of Shariah law is pushed by the most influential Muslims around the world. Mainstream Muslims. Moderate Muslimsm, as described by the West. But pushing for a global Caliphate.

          Most Muslims do not actively push for this, and many make quite happy neighbors. But they don’t matter; they are not part of the balance on either side. They do not push for a Caliphate; they are not that observant (in both senses of the word). And they do not oppose the jihadists, as this would risk their lives. They keep a low profile: their fate is to be among the ultimate victims.

          There are a few exceptions, brave ones — but it is telling that outspoken “moderate” Muslims, like outspoken non-corrupt Mexican officials, tend to require security to keep their heads attached.

          There is absolutely nothing analogous to this on the Christian side. The one noisy leftist Democrat Christian, Phelps of Westboro Baptist fame, is denounced by Christians world-wide, whereas jihadists are defended, excused, or actively praised by Muslim leaders across the world.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Artaxes' brainbench

Truth in an age of deception


Wandering Towards Faith Am I

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.


Author Alexander Hellene - Pulp with Style

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

"Let Us Live Lives Extraordinarily"


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: