Muslim, Islam, Bush, Religious Freedom, where are we now?

Muslim, Islam, Bush, Religious Freedom, where are we now?

One thing you’ll notice if you keep reading these postings you’ll begin to realize the ideas put forth here are testable.

I’m no Drudge or Rush. I am just a 61 year old veteran that has been around the corner a couple of times. I think I’m just as capable of showing a path of logic to investigate.

In a previous posting I commented on the fact that our excursions into freeing the Middle Eastern countries from Muslim government rule will not be found in allowing it.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have Constitutional Articles that declare that said country to be a Muslim country and government run by Islamic law. Iraq has stronger safeguards against certain specific issues in the Islamic world, as women’s rights would illustrate, but it is still essentially a country run by the Mullah’s and other types of clerics.

They have no real separation of church and state as is explicitly described in our Article that explains this relationship. A government that neither establishes a national religion nor restricts the practice of any religion is the only answer that has been historically successful.

How can this exist and still bring a man before a judge for converting to Christianity?

It doesn’t exist in Afghanistan. It doesn’t exist in all of the Muslim countries.

There is a basic core difference in the philosophy of Middle Eastern countries that go against the basic principles of the rest of the civilized world. You can trade with them, you can depend on their oil if you wish for a short time, but they are not our Allies.

I smile every time I hear a pundit talk about imposing our will on other countries and how basically this is wrong headed and lead by a wrong headed George Bush.

The pundits (read media and federal politicos) are no Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons or Patrick Henrys, but they are educated people and have read the same history I have.

What made our founders so wise is that they looked at the mistakes illustrated by man’s history and acted on that, instead of their own personal preferences or what was popular at the time.

They wrote from looking at what had failed in the past and wrote our rules with that always in mind. At first the middle chose absolute sovereignty by each state. The Articles of Confederation did not work. Some of its broader concepts were later integrated into our present constitution, but a stronger central government was needed and states had to give up some of their absolute rights to join successfully in a Union.

As far as imposing our wisdom on others, it is a lot better to promote freedom from church rule than to defend a country’s right to enslave its people through religious or political ideology. Only where both can exist freely can progress towards peace be made.

The lack of fighting for this “wisdom of the past” only insures future conflicts; it does not bring lasting peace. Our goal should never waver.

We imposed this wisdom on Germany and Japan.

They did not bomb us on September 11th .

Those that say war only lays the seeds of future wars are not reading all of history. They pick and choose which history they quote, they never take the entire picture into account. This is what makes their ideology weak. It lacks perspective.

I remember when all hell broke loose when Bush mentioned the word, “Crusade”.
Oh my God was their ever a fuss from the politically correct crowd. As far as the majority of Muslims are concerned we are infidels unless we accept Mohammed as the only prophet of God.

I suppose that ‘progressive’ Muslims make up a small minority of the Muslim population that lives among us. I think the vast majority think of us as infidels where lying, killing, making treaties with and subverting a free government by using the guilt ridden left are all useful cards they play every day. They complain to the left about "Islamaphobia" yet try a man for converting to Christianity. This basic contradiction is seen in all their dealings with every country that is not Muslim especially the Palestinian fiasco.

I see no history recent or ancient that suggests otherwise.

I suggest that Bush called it right. There is a Crusade. It is not based entirely on Christianity against Muslims but this is the way Muslims define it. The Muslim’s jihad (struggle) is against religious freedom. This is the main weakness of political correctness.
It hobbles us in our effort to see things as they are, instead of how we wish they were.

With political correctness the picture becomes blurred, too complicated. We can no longer describe things as we see them, we must first pass the ‘acceptable’ test and this test distorts our perceptions. When people are confused no one path can be followed. We wander from one political bombshell to the next always wondering what is right.

Our forefathers had the gift of history, so do we. Will we use it?

If we fail to address this basic truth and deal with the Muslim world on their terms, our children and theirs will reap the winds of destruction. We must accept the fact that they are against freedom of belief. That is a basic core issue and will not be resolved with peace talks unfortunately. Unless they change that fundamental part of their religion, we are in a Crusade. A crusade to preserve the freedom to believe anything, not a crusade to eradicate a religion. If a religion stood in the way of this freedom, then of course they would have to be controlled, punished or what ever must be done to safeguard individual freedom. We must not leave them in control.

Yes, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan etc. will eventually be free of religious persecution or not.

If we do not deal with this now, the United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Eastern Block countries all will have a choice in our grand children’s lifetime; either become Muslim or be slaves.