Pro Logica

September 23, 2010

Islam: Religion or Government?

Filed under: Religion — Tags: , , — Ron Toczek @ 3:38 pm

It is safe to say that Islam with its zealous fundamental fanatics has been a rather popular topic in the U. S. news media since 9/11 although it started before with the terrorist activities of a group called Al Qaeda.  Prior to the Al Qaeda bombings most U. S. citizens were only aware that Islam was a foreign religion practiced in some foreign lands.  Certainly, this has now changed.  Besides a gamut of news articles, new books have been published which present both unfavorable and favorable views of the religion.  These have essentially rehashed much older material on the topic; they may touch on the newer aspects of fanaticism; and they emphasize those aspects which illustrate their specific prejudices.

Christians with an eye on history know the enmity of Islam toward Christianity.  One author, I don’t remember who, claimed that Islam was responsible for the murder of more Christians than people killed in all European wars since the Crusades including both World Wars.  Not sure if these are his exact words but it does render the approximate magnitude of the killing, and really there is no nice way to put it.  Even today a World Net Daily article claimed that 170 Christians are martyred every single day, the vast majority by Muslims.  These murders are most always justified by referencing passages from the Koran, the Muslim holy book.

On to the reasons for this post.  We begin with 9/11, a fanatical muslim terrorist attack, followed by an announcement by a Muslim cleric to build a  mosque and Muslim neighborhood center near “ground zero’, a place of especial memory, followed by an announcement by a Protestant minister to hold a public burning of at least one Koran, followed by a muslim leader threatening to burn an American flag.

9/11 was a tragic event in the history of the United States of America and will always remain so and it must be remembered that its perpetrators were Islamic fanatics.  A notable reaction to this event was its joyful celebration by much of the Muslim community worldwide.  The above Muslim cleric, not having any wherewithal for constructing a mosque and community center, nevertheless, announced this intention and some people wondered what his motive could be.  Observing the past history of Islamic conquests  and noting that a mosque was usually built over a sacred site (usually a Catholic Church or a Jewish Synagogue), primarily to denigrate the conquered people’s religion, these people assumed this to be the cleric’s motive and I can’t say that I blame them.  They also assumed that the cleric, knowing that this kind of project would never get permission to be built at the 9/11 site itself–which would be the ideal from an Islamic point of view, chose a site as close as possible to it.  The resulting media brouhaha has abated somewhat and there has been no decision whether to permit the project, at least I haven’t seen such yet.

Then comes this threat to burn Korans.  From an American perspective there is nothing wrong with this.  Muslims have been burning Bibles for thirteen hundred years and continue to do so; why not retaliate?  Some Muslims have claimed worse actions with Biblical pages.  The only problem with this threat is that there are too many fanatical muslims about and they would retaliate by martyring Christians in their midst and their muslim leaders would permit that.  Do not confuse the Islamic use of the word “martyr” with its Christian use;  the Islamic use is illegitimate.

On to the last straw–the muslim leader threatening to burn an American flag in response to the burning of a Koran.  A very appropriate response would be to threaten to burn a Christian Bible, but no, he threatens to burn an American flag, directly assailing our government and its constitution for not being Islamic.  While the burning of an American flag by an American citizen is usually considered a political statement and, as such, permitted, (I do take exception), an American flag when burned by a Muslim American citizen represents an act of treason showing allegiance to a foreign government.  We Americans must not ignore this threat and neither should any government that does not permit Islamic law.  Kenya does not realize the consequences of permitting sharia within its boundaries; it will either become an Islamic state or find itself engaged in an irreconcilable civil war, either event being detrimental to the liberty of its Citizens.  I am also curious as to what will happen in Sudan and I don’t think it will be nice.  The lessons of history have shown that the only way the west can defeat Islam is by bodily kicking the muslims out.

Now for a little anthropological musing.  When looking at the history of the ancient Middle East, one is struck by the number of bloodthirsty rulers.  The early Jews even had some if  the Biblical accounts are to be believed.  The god of choice for many of these rulers was an unforgiving war god and Islam has just elevated an unforgiving war god to a universal status.  Any person equating the God of Islam with the Christian God does not know anything about Islam.  This God of Islam is so opposed to Jesus Christ that he deserves to be called the Anti-Christ.


September 4, 2010

Hypocrisy and the Obama Administration

The last section of my last blog reminded me of my first letter to the editor wherein I stated that Obama, if he were to become president would probably be the biggest hypocrite to ever hold that position.  That prophecy seems to have a chance of being fulfilled.

We start with the presidential Oath of Office which must be taken before the president-elect takes office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We also note that the beginning of Article II states:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.

By taking the Oath the POTUS promises to execute and enforce all Congressional laws unless, in his/her judgment, that particular law is deemed unconstitutional.  Rational and reasonable governance dictates that, in the case of disagreement of constitutionality the two sides would get together and resolve their difference with Congress changing the law to satisfy the constitutionality disagreement.  If either side is adamant the result could be the removal of the POTUS through the impeachment process or the repeal of the law in question by either resolution or de facto means (leaving the law on the books and not removing the POTUS).

Leaving aside the details of good governance and getting to the hypocrisy assertion, there have been four instances in the news recently which have charged the POTUS of not enforcing particular Congressional laws: funding embryonic stem cell research; not enforcing “don’t tell, don’t ask”; spending money for promoting Kenya’s new constitution; and funding pro-abortion organizations.  The charge of hypocrisy of the Obama administration stands since there has been no attempt to justify these four violations of Congressional law.  We can only wonder how many other laws have been flouted by this administration.

Create a free website or blog at