July 22, 2005


'We Don't Need to Fight, We Are Taking Over!' (Paul J. Cella, 07/22/2005, Tech Central Station)

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" ["Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist] said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God." [...]

The people of the free nations of the world, the citizens of the West (or her descendents if in fact the West is no more), are now confronted with sufficient evidence that the efforts to call totalitarian Islam into existence in every free nation are well underway; that such efforts will be materially supported from the home bases of totalitarian Islam, and may be spiritually supported by the very nature of Islam as such*; and that those efforts can, at least to some degree, be encouraged or discouraged by the actions of our own governments.

If you think it's tough for the Left to think coherently these days, pity the poor Right, where you have to oppose the immigration of Christians because they're Latino and side with the secular humanists because they're European.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 22, 2005 10:24 AM

do you make a distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration ?

Posted by: cjm at July 22, 2005 4:01 PM

He only makes a distinction between religious immigration and secular immigration. For OJ, religion can do no bad, and secularism can do no good.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 22, 2005 4:37 PM

My piece mentions none of the following: Latinos, Christians, secular humanists, or Europeans. What is Orrin talking about?

Posted by: Paul Cella at July 22, 2005 4:41 PM


Sure some immigrants follow legal procedures some don't--no one in my family did.

Posted by: oj at July 22, 2005 4:42 PM


That's what escapes me because hard-core secularism is essentially a religion too. And hard-core secularists, whatever their faults, aren't hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, nor are they detonating themselves in pizzerias and subways.

OJ has obviously never understood the meaning of the old chestnut 'The Devil can quote Scripture when it suits his purposes.'

Posted by: bart at July 22, 2005 8:18 PM

The hard-core secularist movements of the 20th century were much more efficient in their mass killings.

Posted by: Gideon at July 23, 2005 1:15 AM

OJ: The Londinastan Bombers were Subjects of the Queen. On the right, we can and do demand that everybody is subject to the Law and that if you swear loyalty to a country you are bound by that oath. If you think being Muslim is more important than being British, leave Britain. If you stay, be loyal and law abiding. If you have a political grievance petition parliament. jihad is illegal, immoral and fattening.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 23, 2005 2:24 AM

OJ: You need to go back and read Mr. cella's excellent piece carefully. It deals with the very tough question of whether a liberal society can deal with an anti-Liberal force. We muddled through on communism, but Islam is a tougher nut.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 23, 2005 3:06 AM


But look around you. Our 'hard-core secularists' couldn't organize a garden club, much less a genocide.

Posted by: bart at July 23, 2005 4:30 AM


Europe isn't fundamentally liberal--it's fundamentally secularist.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 8:43 AM

OJ:"Europe isn't liberal--it's secularist." Isn't a response -- it's a non-sequitur.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 23, 2005 9:42 AM

A secular society can't defeat anti-liberal forces because it offers no foundation for liberalism. Secularism is ultimately anti-liberal itself.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 10:28 AM

Lets draw a distinction between secular and secularist. The former describes a governing philosophy whereby religious commitments are ultimately considered matters of private concern and are protected as such by government. Secularist describes a governing philosophy whereby religious commitments are considered as competing with the ruling ideology of the state, and are subject to state opression.

The former is the best philosophy of government because it rewards the loyalty of all religious faiths, including those without one. The latter rewards only those who hold the ruling ideology as their quasi-religious faith. I say quasi because it has all the trappings of a religious faith except a personal deity. It is a theocracy without the Theo.

Now OJ can't get it through his head that America has a secular government. He also can't get it through his head that non-religious people are not automatically secularist by commitment. He holds that loyalty to the American form of government is exclusively a theistic commitment, and thereby excludes the non-religious as a matter of principle.

A secular form of government, as I mentioned, should be the logical choice of all right thinking people, both the profoundly religious and irreligious. It is the only form of government that maximizes personal freedom of worship and conscience. Its only enemies are those who would subordinate their own free will to a collective will out of some misplaced fantasy that the collective will will bring him more happiness than his own will ever will.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 23, 2005 11:48 AM

Bravo, Robert!

Posted by: bart at July 23, 2005 12:27 PM


Our Republic is predicated on a belief in the God of Abraham, though no specific form of the belief is favored.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 2:23 PM

The founders may have predicated the republic on this belief, but that doesn't mean a theistic belief is necessary in order for our secular republic to work. All that is required of the citizens is that they believe that the constitution represents the best form of government they can hope to acheive, and that they pledge their loyalty to upholding it.

A ballplayer may believe that he has to never wash his socks in order to play at his best, it doesn't mean that unwashed socks are required. It is a talisman. If you think that you cannot uphold your loyalty to the constitution without a religious belief, then continue to believe. Don't expect that others have to profess the same motivation for their loyalty. It is the loyalty that matters, not the underlying motivation.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 23, 2005 3:04 PM

OJ: Liberal society requires religion as a precondition. We can not have self-government unless we can govern ourselves, and we cannot govern ourselves without religion. But because Liberalism begins with isolated individuals outside history guided solely by reason, it cannot encompass religion which is social, historical and non-rational*. Since religion is outside Liberalism's vision, it cannot deal with bad religion.

*I do not mean irrational. Religions are based on experience and faith, which preceed reason.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 23, 2005 4:19 PM

Robert D.:

Yes, your irrational belief in the religiously derived precepts of the Republic suffices so long as you and your ilk are few in number and effectively marginalized. We've done that here. In Europe you and yours have taken over, that's why it's toast.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 5:58 PM

Robert S:

"Liberal society requires religion as a precondition."

Quit while you're ahead.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 5:59 PM

and we cannot govern ourselves without religion.

Why not? Is there an argument behind this assertion? I know OJ cannot produce one, but maybe I'll get lucky with you Robert and finally understand what sort of logic backs this silly conclusion.

Lets put this another way. If you were to meet a person who you believed displayed an admirable quality of self-governance, and then you found out that he were not religious, would you:

a. Revise your theory on account of it being falsified?

b. Assume that he is hiding something?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 24, 2005 11:35 AM


You'd assume that they, like you, were simply a product of blind faith in something they didn't comprehend. When you swear to uphold the Coinstitution you're accepting its theistic basis.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 11:41 AM

You'd assume that they, like you, were simply a product of blind faith in something they didn't comprehend.

Does that constitute religion in your book?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 24, 2005 11:53 AM


Yes, our system is so imbued in Judeo-Christian theology that folks like you can freeload rather easily on a religion you claim not to believe in. Such conformity works reasonably well for all concerned.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 1:08 PM

So my self-governance is due to conformity? That doesn't make sense. If morality is due to conformity, then you can't have self-governance.

Your agrument is illogical. If religion is required as a basis for morality, then its absence should preclude morality. If morality can be picked up by osmosis, by being "marinated" in a moral culture rather than as a direct result of the operation of a religious viewpoint on the individual, then there is no reason that the same moral culture can't be transmitted from generation to generation even as the religious justification fades away.

You know that I'm right, that is why you resort to the ad-hominem "freeloader" accusation whenever I call you on it. Ad-hominems are the sign of a bankrupt argument.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 24, 2005 3:46 PM


It's not ad hominem. It's was coined by an atheist who was trying to explain the inability of the non-religious to justify any moral system.

All morality is in the end is conformity to the rules God gave us. So long as most of us understand its derivation it's unimportant whether everyone does, so long as they (you) conform.

The idea that you can have a society where no one believes in the derivation but the rules remain is inane, like saying that once you've built a house on a firm foundation you can remove that foundation without any consequence.

Atheism can't even clear the first hurdle that morality requires. It can't determine why there should be any.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 5:09 PM

The rules are derivable by anyone with common sense and a conscience. That much was conceded by the founders who appealed to the idea of natural law - the law that is written in men's hearts and minds. Morality's foundation comes from within, it is never absent.

Of course, knowing the rules is not the most important component of morality. As with baseball, the rules can be learned in a day, but mastery can take a lifetime.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 24, 2005 7:11 PM

They didn't appeal to natural law but to the Creator and his Natural Law. The need for Law arises only because Man has been endowed with dignity and that dignity must be protected. No God, no morality.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 7:23 PM

Strange that they didn't mention that in the Constitution.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 24, 2005 8:37 PM

They said that was why they wrote it:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 11:33 PM

No God in that quote, either. Unless you consider Lady Liberty to be a goddess.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 25, 2005 9:29 AM

Liberty isn't a lady, it's a Blessing.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 11:24 AM

My Webster's dictionary defines 'Blessing' as 'a thing conducive to happiness and welfare'. No divinity there.

Robert, that is one of the dangers of debating with OJ. He refuses to use words in their commmonly understood meanings, sort of like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland.

Posted by: bart at July 25, 2005 12:38 PM


Actually it defines blessing (small "b") that way and even that opnly as a tertiary definition. A Blessing is quite another matter.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 1:33 PM

The Constitution excludes religion -- of any kind -- from government in Article VI.

Orrin is not enough of a strict constructionist to accept that, though.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2005 5:06 PM

No, it excludes using religion of just one kind as a test. You wouldn't have to make sure all religions were included if you were barring religion. No one thinks that when we made a rule that there couldn't be a racial test for voting it meant there was to be no voting.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 5:10 PM