Blog Archives

We cannot defeat terrorism if we disconnect ideology from religion


From the news media:
UK Prime-Minister Theresa May says that the recent [terrorist] attacks are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single, evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division, and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.
—————
In essence, Theresa May makes a point that the religion has nothing to do with the ideology and that a religion cannot be wrong by definition. What Theresa May is saying is that if the devotees of some religion, in the case of Theresa May the Islam, do evil things, it is not the fault of this religion (Islam) but the fault of some evil ideology created by the evil people of this religion.
Unfortunately, that is not true. Ideology is a crucial part of any religion – without ideology a religion is a mere mirage. Trying to separate ideology from religion is self-defeating. And here is why.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines religion and ideology in the following way:
– Religion – the expressed manifested faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
– Ideology – the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.
So, any religion has an acknowledged ultimate realty or deity.
For the Jews it is One God with many names such as Yahweh for example; for the Christians it is the Trinity (the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one Godhead); for the Muslims it is Allah and His messenger Mohammad.
For the Nazis, the acknowledged ultimate realty or deity was Hitler and for the Soviets, it was Stalin.
What we tend to forget is that those ultimate deities were not silent. They provided for their devotees the “socio-political programs” on how to shape up a society/nation out of the devotees. And those “socio-political programs” are ideologies by definition.
For the Jews, it is Torah-based Talmud and all its derivatives; for the Christians, it is Torah-based New Testament and all its derivatives, and for the Muslims it is not Torah-based, fundamentally different Quran-based Sharia.
For the Nazis, it was (fortunately, was!) the Mein Kampf, and for the Soviets it was (fortunately, was!) the Communist Manifesto – both certainly anti-Torah “socio-political programs”.
The “socio-political” fundamentals of the USA are based on Judeo-Christian Torah-based moral prescripts which are opposite in many fundamental beliefs to those in the “socio-political” Islamic Quran-based fundamentals prescribed by the Sharia – on family structure, on women, on individual freedoms, on the role of government, on tolerance to the beliefs of others, etc. That does not mean that Islam cannot transform itself – but until it does it, in order to be able to survive as a Judeo-Christian nation we have to fight the Islamic ideology as a part of religion of Islam. This fight shall include preventing the Muslim citizens from creating “socio-political” institutions based on the Sharia and accepting only those new Muslim immigrants who pledge to do so.
This fight shall include preventing any kind of new immigrants who are not accepting the Judeo-Christian “socio-political” fundamentals of the USA. The ongoing (cold) civil war in the USA is to a great degree a result of the influx of such immigrants in the last half-century.

“Religious test” for immigration? – Yes, if understood correctly


 

From the news media:

 

The Canadian House of Commons has passed motion M103, which singles out the criticism of Islam as a form of “Islamophobia”. Iqra Khalid, a Muslim member of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, tabled motion M103. It states the government must “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”.

 

————

 

So what is religion of Islam in the contemporary Judeo-Christian civilization – religion of peace we should joyfully coexist with, or religion of violence that should be feared and restricted in our own “Judeo-Christian home”?

 

Any religion has two critical components.

 

One of them is the belief in the existence of Almighty Super Power called God who created us the humans (and of course, everything else), guides us in our lives, rewards us if we obey and discipline us if we misbehave. Our religious institutions (synagogues and churches) are the deliverers of God’s guidance.

 

This critical religious component – the belief in the existence of Almighty Super Power called God – does not require any test for Muslim immigration into the Judeo-Christian America since our nation was created as a nation blessed by God. Indeed, the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. Our Constitution had been written with necessary provisions for forcing our political institutions to secure those God-given unalienable Rights.

 

However, the other critical component of any religion affects, and affects intensely, the functioning of a nation, and this is a religious ideology. Like a secular ideology, this ideology defines what is Good and what is Bad in human behavior, and how to support Good and suppress Bad through the government legislative work. Although the religious leaders declare what is Good and what id Bad in the name of God, their declarations are not the word of God – their declarations are their human interpretation of what may or may not be the true God’s guidance.

 

That is why in the area of religious ideology various religions are differing significantly. Some of them are comparable with our founding Judeo-Christian religious ideology while some are adversarial.

 

If the founding national ideology is infected by an adversarial ideology, a nation is on the way to very destructive disturbances. That is why the religious immigration test for this religious component is not just necessary but is the matter of national destiny.

 

The ideological religious test should be based on the Judeo-Christian founding ideological ideas something like the following.

 

·         Do you believe the government should provide you with comfortable level of living, or you believe you have to provide a comfortable level of living for yourself and your family through your own work?

 

·         Do you believe you have to resolve your disputes with the others in the nation’s legal institutions, or you believe your traditional courts (sharia courts for example) are the way for you?

 

·         Do you believe all religions are equally important, or you believe in the superiority of your religion?

 

·         Are you familiar with the ideological Judeo-Christian foundation of our country and do believe you can follow it, or you believe you should preserve your old traditions in the new country?

 

·         If the reality proves, you cannot do all in the above, would you agree to return to your native country?

 

We have to apply the religious ideological test to all immigrants to prevent our ideological adversaries from becoming citizens of our country – to prevent people with dangerous ideologies to come to our country and harm our way of life

 

From the news media:

 

A former Labour Party foreign minister has implied the government of Tony Blair was wrong to ignore the religious roots of Islamist terror, urging authorities to ‘take on’ the ideology to defeat terror. Kim Howells, who oversaw the work of MI5 and MI6 during the Blair and Brown years, said Islamist violence is distinct from other forms of terror and Western values such as democracy must be defended.

 

———

 

Yes, it is true. The Islamic religious ideology is indeed looks as incompatible with the American and Western religious Judeo-Christian ideology and therefore has to be subjected to an immigration-related “religious test”.

 

“Invite a Muslim for Shabbat” – why not a Christian?


 

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld at Jewish Journal in “Invite a Muslim for Shabbat”:

 

It will be a very long time before I forget the news I heard this week of a 5-year-old Muslim child handcuffed at Dulles Airport on Saturday because he was deemed a security threat. … This past Monday night my wife came home and told me that a Muslim acquaintance of hers who she knows through work told her that his child is very scared and is crying non-stop since Saturday. We started talking about what we could do to help this child.

 

Every Friday night we host lively Shabbat dinners in which we usually entertain members of our congregation. But after hearing that story, my wife and I decided that we should invite this Muslim family for Shabbat dinner. A Shabbat dinner is a powerful opportunity to connect while breaking bread together.

 

—————-

 

I have reprinted this story not to discuss the police’s action – I assume the police may have their own legal reasons to do this. I have reprinted this story to discuss the decision of this rabbi – to invite this Muslim family to a Shabbat dinner.

 

Should we invite the non-Jews and possibly anti-Semitic non-Jews to our Jewish Shabbats? I believe it depends on the reason for invitation and the way of celebrating Shabbat.

 

If we celebrate Shabbat as a commemoration of God’s creation of the humans as equals in His likeness and image and therefore we invite the non-Jews to validate our belief in it before the invitees, such invitation is a spiritually noble one and a way of dispelling the anti-Semitic feelings toward the Jews.

 

If we celebrate Shabbat as a commemoration of our freedom from slavery in Egypt and as our spiritual duty as the Chosen to help everybody else to obtain the freedom from any oppressive force such as dictatorship, racism, slavery, anti-Semitism, etc., such invitation is a spiritually noble one and a way of dispelling the anti-Semitic feelings toward the Jews.

 

However, if we celebrate Shabbat just with an expensive family dinner and traditional Shabbat rituals (when we equate the commemorative discussions in the above to the work prohibited on Shabbat), the invitation of non-Jews to this Shabbat may enhance their anti-Semitic feelings about the Jews having luxury lives at the expense of the others.

 

From the news media:

 

The Kushners hosted Shabbat dinner for Trump Cabinet members. The gathering is the first indication of how the Kushner-Trump power couple will combine their White House roles with the demands of Shabbat.

 

—————

 

The Trump Cabinet members are mostly Christians, and this Kushners’ Shabbat with Christian invitees I believe should be imitated by other Jewish families who celebrate Shabbat. “Invite a Christian for Shabbat” may be much better to fight anti-Semitism than to “Invite a Muslim for Shabbat”.

 

Why?

 

There is no spiritual way to change the principle Islamic division of the world in two parts – the already Islamic one and the “to become Islamic” one. Of course, there are good Muslims who do not believe in this division of the world but they are a small minority unable to change the fundamental traditional spirituality of the entire Muslim world. There is no equal Jewish and Christian citizens in the perfect Islamic world. Therefore, “Invite a Muslim for Shabbat” may be a “good-feeling” initiative unable to find the common spiritual roots in Judaism and Islam and to dispel anti-Semitic beliefs in the Islamic world.

 

The majority in the Christian world has no spiritual objections against other religions and it acknowledges the Jewish fundamental roots in Christianity. Therefore, “Invite a Christian for Shabbat” may be a truly spiritual move able to strengthen Judeo-Christian foundation of the US and of the Western countries in general and dispel the anti-Semitic beliefs.  

 

 

 

US immigrants – some with love and some with hate for our way of life


From the history books:

America’s first settlers came in search of freedom to practice their faith. In 1620, a group of roughly 100 people later known as the Pilgrims fled religious persecution in Europe and arrived at present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts, where they established a colony. They were soon followed by a larger group seeking religious freedom, the Puritans, who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. By some estimates, 20,000 Puritans migrated to the region between 1630 and 1640.

A larger share of immigrants came to America seeking economic opportunities. However, almost all of them were from Europe were the Judeo-Christian morality was the foundation of social fabric of the society– therefore, they were easily assimilated into new unique American democracy based on Judeo-Christian spirituality and free-market economy.

————-

From the very beginning and probably until the 1960th, US immigrants were coming to this country with love that is with deep appreciation for the opportunity to live freely, without fear of persecution, along the lines of Judeo-Christian morality that includes individual-freedom-based opportunities and responsibilities. It was possible because the government was small and not intrusive into the lives of ordinary citizens letting them build their own individual spiritual and economic domains. The immigrants who were coming to this country were finding here the opportunities for religious, economic, social and political freedoms constrained mostly not by government controls and regulations but rather by their Judeo-Christian moral principles.

From the contemporary immigration statistics:

By the end of the 20th century, the policies put into effect by the Immigration Act of 1965 had greatly changed the face of the American population. Whereas in the 1950s, more than half of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians, by the 1990s only 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were of Asian descent, while the percentages of Latino and African immigrants had also jumped significantly. Between 1965 and 2000, the highest number of immigrants (4.3 million) to the U.S. came from Mexico, in addition to some 1.4 million from the Philippines. Korea, the Dominican Republic, India, Cuba and Vietnam were also leading sources of immigrants, each sending between 700,000 and 800,000 over this period.

Indeed, that is a dangerous time for the Western Judeo-Christian democracies and the mostly clear evidence of it is its immigration policy, which is based not on the Judeo-Christian moral principles but rather on the political “politically correct” principles.

————-

Thus, for the last half-century, the guiding incentives for immigration have been changing and changing rapidly in the direction of replacing the newcomers with European-variety Judeo-Christian moral principles and therefore with no assimilation problems.

The completely different incentives for immigrating to the US were created – not to obtain individual freedoms and be responsible for your own destiny but to get government goodies. Some of the new immigrants are indifferent to our Judeo-Christian values – they do not hate but rather dilute the traditional American Judeo-Christian governing morals, and some of them, mainly those who are Islamized, hate our values and are aimed at replacing or diluting them by their own Sharia-based values. That is a very spiritually unhealthy trend in the country.

This trend can be seen in the immigration from Russia. Among Russian immigrants, two different brands of immigrants are easily recognized.

One brand consists of those who, although were born and some of them even educated in Russia (the old Soviet Russia or a contemporary Putin’s Russia), are true Americans in love with the American way of life – they cherish American Judeo-Christian tradition and individual freedoms. They may love Russian music and poetry but they cherish American individual freedoms that let them build their own destiny without relying on the big government. They are true patriotic Americans who are defending and strengthening the Judeo-Christian fundamentals of this country even if they call themselves atheists. The great majority of them were and still are in the Donald-Trump anti-establishment camp.

The other brand is different – they cherish Russian way of life and, although they have well paid jobs and upscale homes here in the USA, they spiritually live in Russia. They immigrated to the US for purely economic reasons. Here in the US, they are missing a strong government hand in everything that they love in Russia. In Russia, they may have criticized the government but criticized it not for the lack of individual freedoms but rather for the lack of abundant government goodies and strong hand. They are not patriotic Americans in the true Judeo-Christian sense of this idea and they support everything that empowers the government. They may not like America but at least they do not hate it as many form the Islamic countries (so-called Islamists) do. The great majority of them were and still are in the Hilary-Clinton establishment camp.

From the news media:

During an interview on Friday’s “Alan Colmes Show” on Fox News Radio, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) characterized President-Elect Donald Trump as “a threat to me, my country, my grandson, my daughters, my wife, to all the important people in my life, and to America.”

Gutierrez said, “I never thought of a President of the United States as a threat to me, my country, my grandson, my daughters, my wife, to all the important people in my life, and to America. I was never — this one is different.”

————–

Unfortunately, many like Luis Gutierrez hate this country. They hate not a political establishment called the US. They hate the American-brand Judeo-Christian governing morality of the country where people themselves are shaping their own life (as created in the image and likeness of All-powerful God). They are fighting to replace this morality by the governing morality of all-powerful human government, which is taking care ideally of its subordinates but practically of itself.

Lessons of Obama presidency: the roots and upbringing define governance 


We are sure Vladimir Putin’s roots as a KGB man and his upbringing in a corrupt post-Soviet Russian system define his governance – what is Good for him, what is Bad for him, and how to apply force to enhance Good and suppress Bad. We may not like all that but at least we believe we know why it is so – we believe it so because of Putin’s roots and upbringing.

However, in our own American politics we measure a potential candidate for presidency by his politically correct statements – not by his spiritual roots and upbringing, and the governance of our outgoing president Barak Obama is a perfect example.

When we compare his politically correct governing promises with the results, it looks like an almost complete failure. However, when we compare what his roots and upbringing encourage him to do, it may look like a great success – not for the country and its people but rather for Obama’s personal ambitions coming from his roots and upbringing.

Obama’s politically correct governing promises were very attractive:

  • A diverse family with American White-race mother and Kenyan African-race father that assured many he understands the people of different races and therefore is prepared to bring them together.
  • A street organizer that assured many he understands the life of poor people and therefore knows how to deliver them a better life conditions.
  • A Nobel Peace laureate that assured many he knows how to make peace domestically and internationally.
  • An Ivy-League college graduate that put him in one group with many other distinguished political leaders.
  • A person who made political journeys into many countries of the world where he was treated as a dignitary who may deliver almost everything.
  • A church-service participant that assured many he has good morals.

All of the above were false assurances constructed based on the artificially created politically correct morals – not on the true Judeo-Christian morality of our country.

The people with Judeo-Christian morality of our country assessed the roots and upbringing of Obama and came down to completely different conclusions, namely:

  • Since in the Islamic universe Obama is considered to be a Muslim (in Islam, religion of children is defined by father’s religion), and leaving Islam in this universe is punishable by death, there is a good probability his governance would be marked by anti-Israel, anti-Christian and anti-Judeo-Christian actions in favor of the Islamic universe. Now we see this assessment was correct – it looks like Obama’s actions have advanced the ideas of Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Since the chief goal of street organizers is not to improve the life of the organized but rather to demonstrate their leadership capabilities for future career advances, no improvements of life of the poor should be expected. Now we see this assessment was correct – the number of poor people now are greater that was eight years ago.
  • Since the Nobel Peace Awards have become purely politically correct awards, which do not require any real peace achievements, no peace achievements should be expected from a person with this award. Now we see this assessment was correct – the world now is a more dangerous place than it was eight years ago.
  • Belonging to the Ivy League makes you a part of the politically correct establishment, encouraging you to do everything to please this establishment, not to make the life of the ordinary citizens spiritually and materially better – now we see this assessment was correct as the victory of Donald Trump proved it.
  • Being treated as a dignitary in foreign countries might be an indication that those countries expect a future US president to favor them in international agreements. Now we see this assessment was correct as the economic harm in our trade relations with China and Mexico show.
  • Being a church-service participant is a negative characteristic if you go to the church which is hating the American traditional values and traditional Judeo-Christian morality of our country proclaiming from the pulpit “God damn America”. Now we see this assessment was correct as the Obama-guided retreat of the US from almost all world areas of American strategic interest demonstrates.

Indeed, the roots and upbringing of Barak Hussein Obama have defined his governance – to the detriment of our own material and spiritual wellbeing.

%d bloggers like this: