Mass Violence in America

by Glenn N. Holliman




The following appeared in the Washington Post, and it is a devastating commentary on American culture.  Opinions on this topic welcome. -  GNH

By Fareed Zakaria July 30, 2015

 

Since 9/11, the United States has responded aggressively to the danger of terrorism, taking extraordinary measures, invading two countries, launching military operations in many others, and spending more than $800 billion on homeland security. Americans have accepted an unprecedented expansion of government powers and invasions of their privacy to prevent such attacks. Since 9/11, 74 people have been killed in the United States by terrorists, according to the think tank New America. In that same period, more than 150,000 Americans have been killed in gun homicides, and we have done . . . nothing. 

Our attitude seems to be one of fatalism. Another day, another mass shooting. Which is almost literally true. The Web site shootingtracker.com documents that in the first 207 days of 2015, the nation had 207 mass shootings. After one of these takes place now, everyone goes through a ritual of shock and horror, and then moves on, aware that nothing will change, accepting that this is just one of those quirks of American life. But it is 150,000 deaths. Almost three Vietnams.

 

After last week’s incident in Lafayette, La., the governor of the state and Republican presidential candidate, Bobby Jindal, pointed his finger at what has now become the standard explanation for these events: “Look, every time this happens, it seems like the person has a history of mental illness.” 

But it makes little sense to focus on mental health. The United States has a gun homicide rate that is at least a dozen times higher than those of most other industrialized countries. It is 50 times higher than Germany’s, for instance. We don’t have 50 times as many mentally disturbed people as Germany does — but we do have many, many more guns. 

At least we have stopped blaming gun violence on video games. Perhaps someone noticed that other countries have lots of violence in their pop culture but don’t have this tsunami of gun deaths. Japan, for example, is consumed by macabre video games and other forms of gory entertainment. In 2008, Japan had just 11 gun homicides. Eleven. Why? Hint: It has very tough gun-control laws.

Jindal at least suggested that states follow or even strengthen laws to make sure that mentally unstable people can’t buy guns, but this has placed him beyond the pale for the gun lobby. Former Texas governor Rick Perry’s solution is to loosen the few restrictions on guns that do exist so that, in the Lafayette movie theater, other patrons could have been armed and would have shot the gunman. 

The notion that the solution — in dark, crowded movie theaters — is a mass shoot-out is so dangerous that it should rule out Perry as a serious Republican presidential candidate. When asked about such proposals after the mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., William Bratton, who has now been police chief in three major U.S. cities, dismissed the idea. To him the solution is obvious. “[We need] some sanity in our gun control laws. . . . Gun control can reduce these numbers of incidents,” he told CNN. 

We have become so inured to the catastrophic levels of violence in our cities that we gloss over them. People often ask me if I think it’s safe for them to travel to countries such as Egypt or Morocco. The reality is that many major U.S. cities have homicide rates that are many times higher than those in places such as Cairo or Casablanca. (And it’s worth noting that non-Islamic terrorists — as in Charleston, S.C. — have killed almost twice as many people as jihadis have in the United States since 9/11.) 

In the wake of this ongoing tragedy, we have actually loosened restraints on the ability and ease with which people can buy, own and carry guns. This is partly because in June 2008, the Supreme Court broke with 200 years of precedent and — in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia — created an individual right to gun ownership that has made common-sense regulation of guns much harder.

In his powerful dissent in that case (District of Columbia v. Heller), Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out that Scalia’s opinion was an act of extreme judicial activism — that for two centuries, federal courts had recognized that the government had the power to regulate the sale of firearms, and that the Supreme Court in particular had for at least seven decades consistently affirmed that interpretation. 

It is not an act of fate that has caused 150,000 Americans to die over the past 14 years. It is a product of laws, court decisions, lobbying and pandering politicians. We can change it.

Read more from Fareed Zakaria’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Comments on this on going violence in the USA? 

 

From a Pennsylvania barrister:

 

Glenn, thanks.  To some extent the problem of gun violence in the United States is a problem involving both mental health issues  and  the availability of guns, but anyone who seriously delves into this problem must recognize that the history of the United States required the availability of guns. 

The territorial expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific required meeting hostile forces with weapons.  Manifest Destiny and westward expansion required arming those who moved west.  That cultural history can not be ignored.  As well intentioned as they are, those who want stricter gun control must come to terms with that historical reality.


From an Englishman summering in France:

Dear Glenn

As ever, one despairs at your nation's fascination   - nay fetish - with guns. I note your Pennsylvania barrister's apologia referring to ".... the history of the United States REQUIRED the availability of guns ..."  and in his second paragraph "... westward expansion REQUIRED arming ....". Notice the use of the perfect tense. He seems to be condemning you all to living in the past.

Overcoming the Nazis in the 1940s REQUIRED conscription and severe food rationing in the UK, but we don't have it now, a mere 70 years later.

I wish that I could remember exactly to which PM and US President the following conversation refers - I seem to recall that it was Harold Macmillan - no doubt your better historical knowledge would confirm or deny - but the matter went along the lines of:

President: "Why, Prime Minister, do you insist on not arming your police forces?"

PM: "Why, Mr President, do you insist on arming your people?"

Beautifully warm and sunny here in Provence.

From our literary goddess down under....

My first and last reaction to your Pennsylvanian barrister is exactly the same as your Englishman summering in France. The history which required guns in America is just that – HISTORY. PAST TENSE.

Australia brought in a much needed restriction on automatic weapons, and I felt very proud of our leader who flew in the face of those typical gun crazies who maintained that just as many weapons would come in through the back door. Of course some will always find a way to the baddies in our society, but no mass murders to my knowledge have occurred in Oz since one nutter used an automatic weapon and killed many people in Tasmania some years before John Howard PM brought in the reform.

America simply must wake up to its present unacceptable reality, but it seems from where I stand in relatively safe Australia, until the majority of anti-automatic weapon people match the obstinacy and money of the pro-automatic weapon people, and say ‘enough is enough’, this appalling mass homicide will continue to happen. Poor Barak O can whistle Dixie, but nought will change.

End of Oz rant.

 From a member of the judiciary in the Eastern United States....
 Do you know if the "homicides" included "suicides"?

Culture of devaluing human life doesn't help either.

There will always be guns, like it or not. Some in the past liked a substantially unarmed citizenry very much. Some still do and insist on it.

As far as I know the Swiss still take their militia automatic weapons home from the armory.  Maybe they don't anymore. But the guys from the north didn't visit when they went everywhere else. This was a few years ago. The guys from the southeast are coming now--in peace and love, of course. Maybe not to Switzerland, but in some numbers elsewhere.

Lots of bad, but good, too. depends on your point of view, unless you are a groundhog in my garden and then you are for very strict control.
 

A Facebook Pronouncement by The Rev. Franklin Graham

by Glenn N. Holliman

Recently, I emailed to many of you an Atlantic Monthly article on evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the famous Billy Graham, American 20th Century Baptist revivalist.  The elder Graham, now frail and in his 90s, preached tolerance with his strong call to Christianity.  His son, inheritor of the Billy Graham Association, has been accused of spreading intolerance.   

In his July 17 Facebook post, Franklin Graham, pictured above, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse Muslims, wrote the following response to the Chattanooga shooting in which five U.S. Servicemen were murdered by a 24 year old male Muslim.

 "We are under attack by Muslims at home and abroad. We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled. Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad. During World War 2, we didn't allow Japanese to immigrate to America, nor did we allow Germans. Why are we allowing Muslims now? Do you agree? Let your Congressman know that we've got to put a stop to this and close the flood gates."

Here is the link to the Atlantic article:

 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/franklin-grahams-turn-toward-intolerance/398924/ .

A number of my friends have responded and here are their diverse comments.

A United Methodist minister from Tennessee, not far from Chattanooga - "He is clearly not his father's son!!" 

An Englishman residing in Normandy, France very conscious of the growth of Islam in western Europe and the effect such is having on traditional culture and customs - "This man is correct. I do not think that the target nations for Islamic mass immigration have even the slightest idea of what future they face if they open their doors to this belief. No idea at all. As is shown by the truly cretinous Middle Eastern foreign policy of the western powers. And the current agony in Britain and France.

As for Islam, I am nowhere near as sanguine as you are. Yes, migration is the characteristic of the US, but it is not unknown here also. The Muslim threat is fundamentally different, however. You will control the numbers and be able to dominate them if you can stop their numbers from swelling to become a large minority.

I have no doubt that Islam has the US in its sights, and you would be wise to recognise its dangers before the worm has entered the guts of the nation; then no amount of treatment will remove it. Islam makes communism a cake-walk. (do you still use that expression, or is it a bit 1950s?)"

A retired educator from the Midlands of England, whose city has numerous Muslim adherents - "A number of responses come to mind.  The first, obvious one, is that Graham is completely and utterly barmy. How can he not be embarrassed by his publicly expressing such bizarre views?

The second is, of course, that it simply encourages me in my conviction that ALL religion is subject to interpretation which inevitably leads to extreme, irrational and dangerous beliefs. The essence of blind faith and revelation, is that it does not depend on evidence: it takes away from a human being, what, to me, makes Homo sapient so different from other forms of life: rational thought based on the evidence of his own senses. 

Religious faith removes from the believer, any sense of doubt and of personal morality and responsibility for their own actions. After all, if they believe that they have the endorsement of "God", they cannot possibly do or think or say anything "wrong", however evil and/or stupid may be their thoughts, words and deeds. 

It also tends to be firmly rooted in the past - thousands of years past - when the 'truth' was revealed to a few 'carefully chosen' ignorant shepherds. The cultures in which the religions were practised usually had their norms reinforced by the religion and thus set in concrete.

They were, generally, violent and intolerant cultures which denigrated women and ethnic minorities, practised slavery, criminalised eccentric behaviour and executed criminals. (Any similarities with the USA of today are purely coincidental!) 

These are not the sort of cultures in which most of us want to live today and unless Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and, to a lesser extent, Hinduism, are prepared to modify and moderate their views and practices to make them relevant to our time, they can have no place in any civilised society.

The third is that, whatever may be my thoughts about religious beliefs and practices, I find it impossible to understand why your news media are not bombarded by holders of more normal religious persuasion, offering more acceptable views. As long as they can continue to spout such total crap without being loudly ridiculed, people like Franklin Graham will carry on doing vast amounts of harm to the international view of the USA as a whole, of religious belief in general, and of Christianity in particular." 

So, responses so far from three learned, insightful persons with differing opinions.  Want to join the conversation?  Please leave a comment in the space below. - GNH 

  And here are some comments:

An Episcopal Priest in Pennsylvania writes:

Good blog....though I have little understanding

about navigating blogs.

I think the reaction expressed in the article toward Muslims

is rooted in the emotional over-reactivity that grows from deep,

panic-laden anxiety and the sense of personal, physical threat

from a non-defined source.

Most people need the "black and white" (sic) approach;

"he is wearing that uniform so he is the enemy" vs.

"he is wearing our uniform so he is a patriot".

When things are not black and white, there often is

a need to make them so, ergo, "all Muslims are the

enemy."

That apparently is where Franklin is and wants to

take us.  The broad-bush label is understandable

albeit simplistic, unhelpful, and potentially destructive.

Get rid of Muslims and we get rid of the problem.

You and I understand that is not a rational approach.

It is delusional-thinking.  It is very prejudicial.  At its

core, such an attitude is non-Christ like.

But when a "lone wolf" murders people it creates

overwhelming irrational fear, and hence, such prejudice

surfaces with a vengeance!  He is not wearing our uniform;

he is a Muslim. Therefore, we must conclude all Muslims

are the enemy....even if they do from time to time wear our

uniform (literally).

The over-reactive, non-Christian response is mow them down,

circle the wagons, kill them before they kill you; the only good

Muslim is a dead Muslim.  Shut the doors.  Do not welcome them.

Send them home.

When such a non-Christian response comes from the mouth

of a Christian preacher and leader, it becomes very confusing

to the listener.

But then we need to consider the source.  Jimmy Carter

recently disavowed his membership in the Southern Baptist Church.

It was an "enough is enough" kind of renunciation.

When the church speaks in the name of Christ but the words are

hate-filled, prejudicial, repugnant, and non-gospel centered, there

is a response that challenges such hatred, that is, the one that Jimmy took. 

Those are my thoughts on the subject you raised for consideration.

Enjoyed your thoughts.  Carry on; stay calm - or not.

From a Distinguished Jurist of the Pennsylvania Bench:
To me Franklin can say anything he wants about anything, but should consider so many things before doing so. I find political bent out of place for a man of the cloth with his heritage, thus demeaning whatever merit may be in his message now and in the future. Look at Perry County Times "Peco Kid" recent article for a view I expected in this county but not from the paper's staff. Seemed relevant here. As I've said before, and believe, 30% is a critical figure and concerns expressed in that area are real.  See the comment from the Continental guy on the Graham article! From an Episcopal Church Organist in Orlando, Florida:

Thanks for the updates.    Graham is a hate monger, not like his father.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/may/22/worlds-biggest-hotel-to-open-in-mecca

This guy is a good architectural writer and critic and there are many other articles worth reading on this site.    He also mentions the recent destruction of historical sites by hardline Islamist.     The religious leaders have done nothing to stop it.   Take care.

From the Methodist Pastor in Tennessee, a recommendation for reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/franklin-graham_b_7827498.html?ir=Religion&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

From an Australian biographer and screen play writer: 

I love the way you open up important questions and let us all have a chance to go to town on them.

Let me speak mostly about my country Australia, although this issue has divided and is dividing not just many western countries of the world, but also Asian ones. The issue has reached boiling point in Australia right now. Therefore, we simply must be brave and talk about it as objectively as we can. Some of the most tolerant people I know (myself included!) are becoming alarmed by this Muslim faith amongst us.

Let’s be clear from the start – the disquiet is about CREED and not about RACE.  It is about a set of values to which we in Australia have worked for and aspired to since the white occupation of Australia and which include equal rights for men and women, tolerance of other religions, democratic law, and more recently, multiculturalism. Buddhism, atheism, Hinduism, Greek and Russian orthodox-ism, Catholicism – all these religions and their associated cultures have had their challenges while finding their place in Australia amongst the once-dominant Anglophile population until the mainstream has become one big river swirling with all colours and faiths but generally swimming along in the same direction. 

That was, until one particular belief system entered the stream and increasingly began to swim against the current, revealing opposing values including discrimination against women, and an intolerance of other religions which in its extreme form expresses itself in the notion of Jihad against the Infidel. Both these practices are not just abhorrent – they are against our laws based on freedom, justice and equality.

The kind, ever tolerant section of our community always point to the moderate decent Muslims amongst us, claiming that these people do no harm and that debates like this demonise and alienate them. To some extent this is true, and this is why I’ve agonised over the issue for a very long time now.

The truth of Edmund Burke’s claim that ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’, is becoming all too clear.

With this in mind, let the good Muslims amongst us 1. cease playing the race card 2. denounce Jihadism 3. allow their women the same freedoms as men.  

Until they do so, loudly and publicly, how can they reassure people like me and expect countries like mine to welcome them into their midst?

  

PS You’re very welcome to post this comment as part of the blog – I’m not sure how to do this. I’m a techno dinosaur.
 

From a Ph.D. in English from a major university in Tennessee:

 "Barmy"--I like that word.





Lots to ponder in these responses.  Thanks so much to all of you. - GNH, July 21, 2015


And the comments keep coming, including a robust rebuttal! - July 22, 2015



From a retired business man and active church person in Georgia:

Thanks for sharing the comments of your friends on this very complex subject.  While Islam is a religion, (they do not worship the same God as we) it is also both a culture and government.  It is, in fact, a theocracy — a form of government by their God.  This is in contrast to our government where we, by law, separate church and state, a subject which was dear to the hearts of our founding fathers.

You cannot criticize Islam solely on the basis of what they do in the name of their religion vs. what Jesus taught because Islam is also a government, and as such, both are inseparable.  Just as an aside, most Muslims are illiterate and do not personally know what the Koran teaches.  Muslims are historically tribal, and have not, and do not, even agree among themselves (Shiite vs. Sunni) as to what constitutes truth.  They do not understand the principles that underlie a secular government.  The boundaries of the nations that comprise the Middle East were drawn by France and Great Britain as victors in World War I without any consideration of the consequences that were so very predictable.  

We have always, as a nation, limited the amount of immigration we would accept, both as a total and by nation.  We are obviously not doing a very good job right now.  I see nothing wrong with limiting the number of people we accept from the Middle East.  The debate should be about the right number — from 0 to whatever and that debate should be centered on secular grounds so that the historical fabric of our country remains intact  Strictly on a personal note — we have always been a Christian nation and I want to see us remain so.  We are doing enough on our own to dilute the faith of our fathers without help from those who openly say they want to destroy us.


From the Continent, again our English businessman and economist, responds with a rip toast to an earlier observation  (some editing with permission) : 

I really have to respond to the set of hanging observations by the priest. The entire monograph needs deconstructing and refuting.

I do so as follows:

First the statement:

He says:

''I think the reaction expressed in the article toward Muslims

is rooted in the emotional over-reactivity that grows from deep,

panic-laden anxiety and the sense of personal, physical threat

from a non-defined source''

I respond:

These loaded value judgments are used to avoid dealing with the hard realities that the Anglican Church has found, through straightforward self-interest, to avoid, or simply to lie about.

The reality of Islam is not as one would have the ignorant laity believe. Indeed it is not so long since Christianity understood precisely what Islam is, what its nature is, and what needed to be done to confront it. (and no, I am not simply talking of the crusades).

One recognizes that the religion (Islam) was spread by the sword, is violently expansionist, requires (unlike Judeo-Christian intellectual life) a literal acceptance of the Holy Koran. There are no references to cultural incompatibilities - why would he as he is an American, where cultural incompatibility is managed in super-isolation from the rest of the world-at least until, very recently- and with little but massive economic success and the backdrop of self justification.

As for emotional over-reaction, Americans do not live in a state where political parties have conspired with local Muslim groups to commit mass rape against many thousands of sub-human 'kufar' in exchange for the hope of voter support.  But if Americans did live in such a state, they might feel both emotional and anxious-at a minimum.

As for physical threat from a non-defined source- the source is clear- that group who actively, passively, or somewhere in the middle, support, encourage, create, hide and protect those Muslims who go out to murder and maim those who get in their way. And by 'get in their way' I mean act in any way to slow the progress to Islamic 'peace' - a condition they define as being when all the world is Muslim; where all the world submits to the will of Allah.

The Church of England in the U.K. and America simply has no concept of what they are actually dealing with in the challenge from Islam. Note the tone and the avoidance of engaging with the hard realities, and masks them by attempted character assassination. 

He says

Most people need the "black and white" (sic) approach;

"he is wearing that uniform so he is the enemy" vs.

"he is wearing our uniform so he is a patriot".

When things are not black and white, there often is

a need to make them so, ergo, "all Muslims are the

enemy."

My response

I can talk at length about the reality of Islam, the contents of the Holy Koran, and why my response to it is as it is. I have done so in my initial note, albeit in light summary.

Here, one talks about 'most people'; about 'black and white' about tribal codswallop.

Is this the guff from a  Sunday sermons???  If so, they must be snoring in the isles from being, again, patronised, insulted, and ignored.  

'When things are not black and white, there often is

a need to make them so'

Not for me there isn't - I prefer rigorous analysis, no waffle, clarity, search for truth, honest robust statement when identified and - hopefully - a discussion that expands on that.

One must avoid the false 'black and white' world of deliberate obfuscation and miss-characterisation.

His loss - we simply will not take him seriously - but we will demolish him - as I do her and now.

The, to prove he is 'heducated', he introduces a bit of latin - 'ergo'.

He says

''That apparently is where Franklin is and wants to

take us.  The broad-bush label is understandable

albeit simplistic, unhelpful, and potentially destructive''

I respond 

There is no justification behind the 'apparently' observation about Franklin. One has made an assertion here that is pure prejudice and simple, naked dislike - nothing else.

Weak - no attempt at serious argument at all.

Did one study only rhetoric and miss out analysis and logic???  Sounds like it.

He says

''Get rid of Muslims and we get rid of the problem.

You and I understand that is not a rational approach''.

I respond

This is distortion of an assumed position. There is no suggestion of 'getting rid of anything  or anyone. There is, however, a strong suggestion that forced integration of mass immigration on credulous and well meaning target-populations is to be avoided for good reasons as clearly described-unless he would have them repeated because one chooses not to grasp them.

He says

''It is delusional-thinking.  It is very prejudicial.  At its

core, such an attitude is non-Christ like''

I respond

Oh dear, more professional avoiding of inconvenient truth. There is no argument made that could be characterised as 'delusional thinking'.  

One so miss states content, reason, logic, argument and conclusions as made by those one would damn, that I have to agree with him - were  absurd miss-characterisations to have been uttered, then they would indeed be 'delusional'.

One gorges on political mischaracterisation of one's adversaries intellects. One sounds credible only to the half-witted.

As for 'prejudiced', he suggests by the miss-use of the word, that it is a blind rejection and dislike based upon nothing at all. That prejudice can be a healthy response based on clear-sighted observation is the experience of all rational men. And him also - unless he would have no sense of prejudice against National Socialism, rampant capitalism, stalinist, Pol Pot, etc etc.

Properly applied, prejudice is highly desirable. One knows that, but lies about it because one may like to live in the false cushion of the mindlessly valueless 'relativist' world.

Christian forgiveness is for God - or the priest to dispense in Roman Catholicism. Elsewhere, setting evil actions at nought is not for man.

He says

"But when a "lone wolf" murders people it creates overwhelming irrational fear, and hence, such prejudice

surfaces with a vengeance! "

I say

One implies other weaker creatures act viscerally - One further implies he would hold back and behave differently. The suggestion is a conceit. One probably would not, but one feeds self image, almost silently, and quite annoyingly to those of us who know he is no better.

Yes, that is correct. However, the lone wolf does not exist here. A stupid and clumsy false association (yes, yet another one).

Islam is a sophisticated composite whole. It describes precisely how to achieve domination and control, as well set out in the Holy Koran, by the prophet Muhammad (PBOH).  

At no point do I or others insult Islam and attribute its characteristics to a 'lone wolf'.

It is profoundly dangerous precisely because it is the antithesis of the opportunistic 'lone wolf'

Compared to the super-sophistication of Islam in all its stages of social domination, communism is the creation of -comparatively a mere stone-age bunch of simpletons.

He says

''He is not wearing our uniform; he is a Muslim. Therefore, we must conclude all Muslims

are the enemy....even if they do from time to time wear our

uniform (literally)''.

I say

I and others are well aware we are 'tribal carnivores'; I and others do not refer to the trivial difference of inventions as 'uniforms'. We refer to the most profound difference, that go well beyond 'civilisations' to the nature of consciousness itself. Does one have no concept of concepts!!!

Does one plainly lives in a world where the biggest question of the day is 'can I get Kermit and Big Bird' to share the America Dream!

I am no American - and am thus free of this Krispy-Kreme blandness. Than God.

This is far more than a 'tribal' matter.

Does one not see that at all? If not, where the hell has one been?????

For the record, I do not look at the actions of individual or groups of Muslims. I read the Holy Koran; I read the Muslim scholars, I watch their whole populations, I see their civilisation; I see their desires, and consider their mutual behaviour patterns.

Does our respondant not do this????  He certainly refers to these things not at all.

He says

''The over-reactive, non-Christian response is mow them down,

circle the wagons, kill them before they kill you; the only good

Muslim is a dead Muslim.  Shut the doors.  Do not welcome them.

Send them home''

I say

None here suggest 'mowing down', 'circling wagons', ''killing them before they kill you'', 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim''.  This offends our arguments, and rapes the truth, whilst miss-characterising our personalities and our motivations to the point where a court action could be contemplated (were I a pugilistic and litigation-minded Yank, which, thank God I am not).

I would remind all that it (was) a 'spiritual organisation' that supported Bush, supported the killing in the First World War, supported the destruction of Iraq, supported the attacks on Black people over centuries before they were forced to confront the lies inherent in their rabble-rousing sermons.

He says

''When such a non-Christian response comes from the mouth

of a Christian preacher and leader, it becomes very confusing

to the listener''

I say

It would if it did. Franklin did not say any of that; however, he merely referred to inwards migration.

If one cannot deploy logic and reasoned argument, then we smear our opponents, and hope the 'congregation' is too stupid to catch one out.

He says

''But then we need to consider the source.  Jimmy Carter

recently disavowed his membership in the Southern Baptist Church.

It was an "enough is enough" kind of renunciation.

When the church speaks in the name of Christ but the words are

hate-filled, prejudicial, repugnant, and non-gospel centred, there

is a response that challenges such hatred, that is, the one that Jimmy took''. 

I say

Carter is a saintly man; he is concerned with the running American sore of poisoned race relations and took a stand against people who he did not agree with. Fine. 

Carter could have stayed and argued with them, but he chose to go.

His choice; not one from which a moral generalisation can be made.

That matter which is of concern to Carter is the by product of peoples of transparently different gifts and backgrounds having been rammed together in circumstances that resulted in violence, oppression, economic exploitation and continuing misery.

One should not - or willfully wishes not to - see that it is that precise level of eternally intolerable incompatibility that I and others profoundly wish to both warn against, and avoid, where possible.

From a Pennsylvania legal scholar ....

Glenn, I find the Confederate flag easy from a legal point of view.....no governmental (federal, state or local) flying of the Confederate flag and anyone who wants to fly the flag at home or wants to put the flag on a car or a jacket or a hat or whatever is welcome to do that.

The issue of how to deal with people who migrate to a nation which has values at variance with the values of the immigrants is much more difficult.  In light of the rise of the transportation revolution and the ease of migration (due to various factors in the past 25 years), many if not most nations are going to face this issue. 

Migration has accelerated at such a pace in the past 25 years that it is very difficult to keep track of all the variations....poor to rich, rural to urban, underdeveloped to developed, north to south, Latin America to the United States, Eastern Europe to Western Europe, North Africa to Western Europe, the Middle East to Western Europe, within China from inland areas to the coast,  in southeast Asia to Australia and New Zealand, from parts of southern Africa to South Africa.  The number of people migrating every day boggles the mind.

The strains on the existing political, economic and social systems are astronomical.  The tension within all societies receiving huge numbers of immigrants is palpable.  Fear of the "other" is a common human characteristic and is always just below the surface in all societies, migrants or no migrants.

Some societies will adjust well to the new immigrants and others not so well.  We in the United States are lucky to have a history of assimilation which has been very successful.  That history has been due in part to  a huge territorial expanse with innumerable resources and economical and political systems which largely encouraged immigration.   Whether we continue to be lucky when faced with even more migrants as the innumerable resources decline, the economical system undergoes significant changes and the political system lurches increasingly toward dysfunctionality is an open and fascinating question. 

See you in September, have a great summer and keep cool.


 Again from our Australian writer, a woman of sophistication and achievement in the letters and arts....

This is such a divisive topic, and yet I feel sure that most who have contributed so far are good people who are searching for the truth. It is my strong view that all those who believe blindly and literally in the Bible or the Koran or any other manuscript claiming these are written by God or by a person equating to God, have no interest in seeking the truth. In fact, such fundamentalism is the ‘black and white’ which avoids the ‘inconvenient truth’ and therefore comes close to sad dishonesty, sad because few fundamentalists of any religion are able to acknowledge this. They have been brainwashed, and few have ever emerged from brainwashing with a clear head able to logically debate any issue.

Perhaps it would be more constructive if we who are interested in this particular issue, take a deep breath and state what we observe to be the truth. Then we should argue as simply as we can why we believe this to be the truth.

For example, is it an observable truth that many people in Europe, the USA and in Australia are beginning to feel increasingly alarmed about the spread of Islam and its associated cultures? Yes. In my country, is it also observable that other cultures amongst us from China, Greece, Italy, Vietnam, Germany etc, and other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, Jewish, Greek and Russian Orthodoxy, ARE CAUSING NO ALARM WHATSOEVER? Yes, true.   

So why the increasing alarm about this particular religion and its associated cultures?  Let’s boil it down now to an observation from me personally. I admit that I feel almost physically ill when I see a woman kitted out in the full burka trailing along a few feet behind her husband. Why is this? I instinctively realise that my sick feeling derives from fear. It is not a fear plucked out of bigotry or prejudice, but from my knowledge of history.  My great grandfather Tom Price, his wife Annie, and many of their colleagues, fought tirelessly and with great self-sacrifice here in South Australia to make the world a happier place for men and women. He fought in the political arena for the eight hour day, universal suffrage, and for all people of all denominations to practise what he called Christian socialism where you rolled up your sleeves and helped in a practical way free of dogma. By the time this boy stonecutter turned politician died in office as a beloved Premier in 1909, he and Annie had made a difference.  Women here were some of the first in the world to cast their vote at the ballot boxes in 1896, and with that followed women being accepted into former male-dominated professions and finally, of course, into politics itself. By 1915 Annie became the first female JP and sitting magistrate in the Empire.

Now, that’s what I call progress, courageously achieved despite great hardship. What terrifies me, and I don’t think it’s going too far to say ‘terrifies’, is the thought of a belief system gaining dominance where women are once again treated as second class citizens and told that unless they cover themselves from head to toe they are asking to be raped. Worse still, if they are raped, then they have dishonoured the family and thus deserve to be killed.  Okay, it’s true that this thinking belongs to the more radical elements of Islam, but the alarming point is that some Muslim clerics here in Oz have voiced these very opinions, one calling underdressed women ‘pieces of meat’ to be used accordingly.  This is true. It can be checked out.  And it is not created by my personal paranoia or fear.

That is why I call upon all the good Muslims around the world to renounce jihadism and repression of women. And once again I say, until they are brave enough to do this loudly and publicly, they must expect the distrust and fear to remain.

Okay Glenn, over and out. I’ve stood on the soapbox for long enough.

Interesting and dynamic responses to a, if not the, most serious issue of this early 21st Century - the rise of militant Islam and the migration of people of Islamic faith. My thanks to persons from three continents - Australia, Europe and North American for stating opinions, some stronger than others, all seeking to noodle on the issue of intolerance and security in an interchanging world. GNH  July 24, 2015


 And the comments keep coming.  This has arrived from our Australian guru, who passes along an article from Sydney....commenting on a speech by Prime Minister David Cameron of the U.K. comparing his words to the Abbott administration in Australia. GNH July 29, 2015


 Janet Albrechtsen
Columnist
Sydney

It’s so rare for a politician to climb out on a limb that the very notion of a brave political speech has almost become an oxymoron. So let’s give credit where it is due.

Last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron confronted a tough debate with brutal honesty. For too long, Western leaders have danced around the real reasons for the rise of Islamic State.

From US President Barack Obama to Tony Abbott, Western leaders have shied away from telling it like it is, choosing instead mealy-mouthed political correctness and cultural infirmity.

Speaking at Birmingham’s Nine­stiles School, Cameron said this: “In the past, governments have been too quick to dismiss the religious aspect of Islamist extremism … But simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work.”

He’s right. In Australia, Abbott, normally a straight-shooter, has failed to make the honest link between Islam and Islamic State.

Cameron made the obvious point that “these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith.”

He said it is futile to deny that. Worse, it is dangerous to deny the link because you neuter the important voices that seek to challenge the religious interpretations adopted by extremists. Cameron wants to embolden those voices that provide an alternative view of Islam to halt the slide along the spectrum of extremism by so many young Brits.

It has taken a long time for even one Western leader to confront the truth that, as Graeme Wood wrote in The Atlantic in March: “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

Wood added that while most Muslims rejected Islamic State, to pretend it was not a religious group with theology drawn from Islam had led the West to underestimate its ambitions and meant we could not hope to counter it.

The British Prime Minister also admonished Muslim groups for thinking it’s enough to say “we don’t support IS”. As he said, al-Qa’ida doesn’t support Islamic State either. “So we can’t let the bar sink to that level. Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organisation cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists,” he said.

This is bracing stuff. When was the last time Western leaders demanded that Muslim leaders who genuinely want to challenge extremists must also condemn the wild conspiracy theories about the malevolent power of Jews, about the West’s aim to destroy Islam, about Muslims being wronged by the evil actions of the West? When did we last hear a leader say it’s not good enough to condemn terror attacks in London, then feed an ideology by siding with those who set off suicide bombs on Israel?

As Cameron said: “No one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.” Conspiracy theories feed the extremist narrative.

Cameron is right to condemn the grievance mindset and the victimhood mentality adopted by many Muslim groups and exploited by Islamic State to attract followers. What Cameron failed to do was explore how the West itself encouraged victimhood complaints and grievance contests to flourish. While he pointed to the growing segregation of Muslims in schools and public housing, Cameron failed to admit the West’s pursuit of unbridled multiculturalism 40 years ago encouraged this segregation.

Whereas once we expected migrants to integrate into our culture, accept our values, multi­culturalism unshackled those cultural connections. Whereas 40 years ago, the only label that attached to a migrant was, for example, “new Australian”, multi­cul­turalism encouraged each migrant group to adopt a hyphenated identity that allowed cultural and moral relativism to flourish. And that unleashed identity politics and its close relatives, grievance games and equally spurious victimhood claims.

Cultural appeasement emasculates our values. It means that in Australia, the Abbott government refused to deliver its promise to bolster free speech in this country. When Abbott dropped his pre-election promise to reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, an illiberal law that allows people to shut down words that are offensive or insulting, he said it was about preserving national unity and team Australia.

In fact, it was a political sop to those so-called community leaders who oppose moves to shore up free speech. Without a rock-solid commitment to free speech, important debates are stifled.

Cultural complacency explains the 10th annual Lowy Institute survey finding only 60 per cent of Australians, and just 42 per cent of young Australians aged 18 to 29, believe “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government”.

Cultural complacency explains the results of the Institute of Public Affairs’ recent report, The End of History … in Australian Universities, which found that while Australia’s political and cultural institutions have their origins in Britain, of the 739 history subjects taught in Australian universities last year, only 15 covered British history.

As the IPA’s John Roskam wrote last week, “There’s no space for economic history in any history department, but there is room for 15 film studies subjects, 14 feminism subjects and 12 sexuality subjects.”

Cultural appeasement has horrendous physical costs too. Cameron pointed to nearly 4000 cases of female genital mutilation reported in Britain last year and 11,000 cases of so-called honour-based violence in the past five years. And he added, these are just the reported cases.

We would be foolish to imagine the same evils are absent in ­Australia.

The British PM also condemned many British universities for pretending to be bastions of free speech but stifling intellectual debates when it matters. Cameron pointed out that the universities invite Holocaust denier David Irving onto a campus so they can rightly condemn him. But when an Islamic extremist spouts their evil ideology to university students, university leaders don’t say a word to challenge this ideological filth. Cameron denounced the “misguided liberalism and the cultural sensitivity”.

Once again, he should have added that 40 years ago a virulent strain of multiculturalism introduced freedom-loathing viruses into our societies. Only when we combat those viruses can we start reasserting confidence in our own culture — a crucial prerequisite for convincing others about the great virtues of living in a free society.