Islam, Immigration and the Importance of Culture

The Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, recently condemned the barbarism of the Islamic State, but for some reason felt compelled to add: “It has nothing to do with real Islam….”

Meanwhile, Amel Shimoun Nona, the exiled Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul, warned European and Western Christians that they “will also suffer in the near future” because:

you are welcoming in your countries an ever-growing number of Muslims…. You think all men are created equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are created equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

Archbishop Nona doesn’t bother to distinguish between real Islam and false Islam. He takes it for granted that when you invite mass immigration from Muslim countries, you are inviting trouble.

The difference between the two bishops, as one columnist put it, is the difference between “innocence” and “experience.” But it’s more than that. It’s not just innocence on the part of the Australian archbishop and other Western prelates who say much the same thing about Islam. It’s also a conscious defense of a certain narrative about Islam that has developed among many Church leaders. According to this narrative, Islam is one of many valid expressions of the religious impulse and is therefore a good thing. Islamic terrorism, on the other hand, is a betrayal of true Islam.

Why does the narrative need to be defended so assiduously? Well, for one thing, if Islam is intrinsically flawed, then the assumption that religion is basically a good thing would have to be revisited. That, in turn, might lead to a more aggressive questioning of Christianity. Accordingly, some Church leaders seem to have adopted a circle-the-wagons mentality—with Islam included as part of the wagon train. In other words, an attack on one religion is considered an attack on all: if they come for the imams, then, before you know it, they’ll be coming for the bishops. Unfortunately, the narrative doesn’t provide for the possibility that the imams will be the ones coming for the bishops.

In addition to fears about the secular world declaring open season on all religions, bishops have other reasons to paint a friendly face on Islam. It’s not just the religion-is-a-good-thing narrative that’s at stake. Other, interconnected narratives could also be called into question.

One of these narratives is that immigration is a good thing that ought to be welcomed by all good Christians. Typically, opposition to immigration is presented as nothing short of sinful. During a homily at the Italian island of Lampedusa—the “Ellis Island of Italy”—Pope Francis reprimanded Christians for their “indifference” to immigrants and for being “insensitive to the cries of others.” In a similar homily at the U.S.-Mexico border, Cardinal Sean O’Malley decried “the xenophobic ranting of a segment of the population” who refused to acknowledge the positive benefits of immigration. And Catholic leaders are not alone in criticizing opponents of immigration. In a 2010 poll, 75 percent of Protestant church leaders in the Netherlands said that a Christian could not vote for Geert Wilders’ anti-immigration party, because, as one of them put it, “Wilders’ …views contradict Christianity.”

But liberal immigration policies have had unforeseen consequences that now put (or ought to put) its proponents on the defensive. In Europe, the unintended consequences (some critics contend that they were fully intended) of mass immigration are quite sobering. It looks very much like Islam will become, in the not-so-distant future, the dominant force in many European states and in the UK as well. If this seems unlikely, keep in mind that, historically, Muslims have never needed the advantage of being a majority in order to impose their will on non-Muslim societies. And once Islamization becomes a fact, it is entirely possible that the barbarities being visited on Christians in Iraq could be visited on Christians in Europe. Or, as the archbishop of Mosul puts it, “If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.”

If that ever happens, the bishops (not all of them, of course) will bear some of the responsibility for having encouraged the immigration inflow that is making Islamization a growing threat. Thus, when a Western bishop feels compelled to tell us that Islamic violence has “nothing to do with real Islam,” it’s possible that he is hoping to reassure us that the massive immigration he has endorsed is nothing to worry about and will never result in the imposition of sharia law and/or a caliphate. He’s not just defending Islam, he’s defending a policy stance with possibly ruinous consequences for the West.

Of course, presidents and prime ministers say the same sorts of things about Islam. President Obama recently assured the world that “ISIL speaks for no religion,” Prime Minister David Cameron said that the extremists “pervert the Islamic faith,” and UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond asserted that the Islamic State “goes against the most basic beliefs of Islam.” They say these things for reasons of strategy and because they also have a narrative or two to protect. In fact, the narratives are essentially the same as those held by the bishops—religion is good, diversity is our strength, and immigration is enriching.

Since they are actually involved in setting policy, the presidents, prime ministers, and party leaders bear a greater responsibility than do the bishops for the consequences when their naïve narratives are enacted into law. Still, one has to wonder why, in so many cases, the bishop’s narratives are little more than an echo of the secular-political ones. It’s more than slightly worrisome when the policy prescriptions of the bishops so often align with the policies of Obama, Cameron, and company.

Many theologians believe that the Church should have a “preferential option for the poor,” but it’s not a good sign when the bishops seem to have a preferential option for whatever narrative stance the elites are currently taking on contested issues (issues of sexual ethics excepted). It’s particularly unnerving when the narratives about Islam and immigration subscribed to by so many bishops match up with those of secular leaders whose main allegiance is to the church of political expediency.

When the formulas you fall back on are indistinguishable from those of leaders who are presiding over the decline and fall of Western civilization, it’s time for a reality check.

I know this is long, but there's a lot of "to-the-point" and "hard-hitting" truth here.

This is the Discussion on Islam vs. Radical Islam
Many Americans Have Been Waiting To Hear ( 4:51 )

Read this thread.

What You Can’t See on the UN’s Maps of Gaza

Benghazi: The Difference It Makes Is Accountability!

"Sharia" Is Not The "SAME FAITH", and "THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY WERE IRRELEVANT !"

Unusual Answer from Panelist Receives Standing Ovation at Benghazi Coalition Meeting

This is the Discussion on Islam vs. Radical Islam Many Americans Have Been Waiting To Hear

Heritage Foundation Panelist on Radical Islam

I'm a retired air traffic controller/supervisor and I have done official transcripts before.

Full Context: Benghazi Accountability Coalition Event ( 9:17 )

SABA AHMED: As-salamu alaykum. Peace to you all. My name is Saba Ahmed. I'm a Law Student at American University. I am here to ask you a simple question. I know that we portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there is 1.8 billion Muslims followers of Islam. We have 8 million plus Muslim Americans in this country, and I don't see them represented here. But my question ishow can we fight an ideological war with weapons? How can we ever end this war? The jihadist ideology that you talk about - it's an ideology. How can you ever win this thing if you don't address it ideologically? CHRIS PLANTE: Frank. FRANK GAFFNEY: Well, um, I'm glad to see you're representing Muslims in this company. Uh, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I think I can say safely that there isn't anybody on this panel that thinks that all Muslims are the problem. I certainly don't. What we have been trying to help people to understand is the ideology, to use your tern, the doctrine, if you will, uh the program, agenda. I don't know what best way to describe what "Sharia" is. But that's the default line, I think, between Muslims who are … decidedly the problem,because they believe it is "Allah's will", God's will, to impose that will on everybody else, Muslim and non-Muslim, alike, on one hand. And on the other hand, you have lots of Muslims who don't follow that program.They don't even know what it's about, don't speak Arabic, aren't imbued with the traditions of the faith as out of Saudi Arabia, for example. And they are NOT necessarily the problem, at least not yet. But what makes these policy things so important it seems to me, and why it is imperative that we understand it ... It's not just that we don't know that we're fightingan "ideological war" against people who ARE ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF THE SUPREMACY OF THEIR IDEOLOGY but because as a practical matter, we're engaged in a situation that is becoming vastly worse in part because we keep embracing people who are imbued with that ideology. This is why I come back to this idea of legitimating and engaging and funding and arming the Muslim Brotherhood. These are exponents of "Sharia". It is part of their agenda, very explicitly, to impose it, as I say, on everyone else. So I thank you for the question and I think we absolutely do need to deal with it as an ideologically war, at least in part or at least understand the the ideology that is driving THE VIOLENT JIHAD ON THE ONE HAND, AND EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANTLY WHAT THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CALLS THE "CIVILIZATION JIHAD" ON THE OTHER. Many in the government, if they're thinking about this at all, are focused on the sort of dangling, shiny object, dangerous as it is, of "VIOLENT JIHAD". But they're missing ENTIRELY, that other piece that I talked about in connection with Huma Abedin and others, which is … the SUBVERSION, the not-so-much non-violent form of Jihad, as the PRE-VIOLENT FORM OF JIHAD, with which they hope ultimately to take us down just as surely as the others who embrace VIOLENT JIHAD seem to. But at the end of the day, it is something that brings them together, whether it is ISSI, whether it is the Taliban, whether it's Al Qaida, whether it's the Muslim Brotherhood, whether it's dozens of others, IS "Sharia" . And we DO have to get THAT straight. BRIGITTE GABRIEL: Great ,,, Crowd: ( applause) [Video time ( 4:06 )] BRIGITTE GABRIEL: Great question. I am so glad you're here. And I am so glad you brought that up, because this …, because it gives us an opportunity to answer. What I find so amazing is, since the beginning of this panel, which we are here about Benghazi attack against our people; not one person mentioned Muslims, we are here against Islam, or we're launching war against Muslims. We are here TO DISCUSSHOW 4 AMERICANS DIED, and WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING. We are NOT here to bash Muslims. YOU were the one who brought up the issue about 'most Muslims', NOT US. And since you brought it up, allow me to elaborate with my answer. There are 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world today. OF COURSE NOT ALL of them are radicals. The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25% according to ALL intelligence services around the world. That leaves 75% of them, ma … a peaceful people. But when you look at 15 to 25% of the world's Muslim population,you're looking at 180 million to 300 million people DEDICATED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. That is as big of the United States. So why should we worry about the radical, 15 to 25%?BECAUSE IT IS THE RADICALS THAT KILL. BECAUSE IT IS THE RADICALS THAT BEHEAD AND MASSACRE. When you look throughout history, when you look at all the lessons of history,most Germans were peaceful. Yet the Nazis drove the agenda. And as a result, 60 million people died, almost ah, … 14 million in concentration camps. 6 million were Jews. The peaceful majority were IRRELEVANT. When you look at Russia, most Russians were peaceful as well. Yet the Russians were able to kill 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. When you look at China for example, most Chinese were peaceful as well. Yet the Chinese were able to kill 70 million people. The peaceful majority were IRRELEVANT. When you look at Japan prior to World War II, most Japanese were peaceful as well. Yet, Japan was able to butcher its way across Southeast Asia, killing 12 million people, mostly killed with bayonets and shovels. The peaceful majority were IRRELEVANT. On September 11th in the United States, we had 2.3 MILLION Arab Muslims living in the United States. It took 19 hijackers,19 radicals,to bring America down to its knees, destroy the World Trade Center, attack the Pentagon, and … and kill almost 3000 Americans that day. THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY WERE IRRELEVANT ! SO FOR ALL OUR POWERS OF REASON, and US TALKING ABOUT moderate and peaceful Muslims, I'm glad you're here. But WHERE ARE THE OTHERS SPEAKING OUT? AND SINCE YOU ARE THE ONLY MUSLIM REPRESENTATIVE … Crowd: ( overwhelming applause) BRIGITTE GABRIE: ( speaking to the large crowd and waving her hands down to lower the noise) Save your applause until the end. Crowd: ( overwhelming applause) BRIGITTE GABRIEL: Thank you. Crowd: ( overwhelming applause) BRIGITTE GABRIEL: (Laughing) Thank you. AND SINCE YOU ARE THE ONLY MUSLIM REPRESENTATIVE IN HERE, YOU TOOK THE LIME LIGHT INSTEAD OF SPEAKING ABOUTWHY our government … And I assume You're an American? [Ahmed responded yes.] BRIGITTE GABRIEL: You're an American Citizen? [Ahmed responded yes.] BRIGITTE GABRIEL: So, as an American citizen, you sat in this room, and INSTEAD of standing up as saying a question, or asking something about our 4 Americans that died and what our government is doing to correct the problem, YOU STOOD THERE TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT PEACEFUL, MODERATE MUSLIMS. I wish you brought 10 with you TO QUESTION THEM ABOUT WHAT, HOW WE CAN HELP OUT GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE It is timewe take political correctness and THROW IT IN THE GARBAGE CAN WHERE IT BELONGS, and STOP CALLING IT "SAME FAITH" . [Video time ( 8:00 )] Crowd: ( Shouts of "Yeah" and overwhelming applause) CHRIS PLANTE: And they'll be refreshments afterwards. Crowd: ( Laughter and overwhelming applause) CHRIS PLANTE: (to Clare Lopez) Ah, did you want to respond to the ah … ? CLARE LOPEZ: (Shaking her head no) I don't want to. CHRIS PLANTE: You think, ah (laughing) you think that … another time . CLARE LOPEZ: (Shaking her head no) I can't follow that. CHRIS PLANTE: ( Laughing) ( Pointing to Saba Ahmed) You had a follow-up that you'd ah … I'd uh … Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. [Video time ( 8:31 )] (Video of part of the large crowd and Saba Ahmed asking question) SABA AHMED: … A comment. Thank you for your responses. And I do really hope that other Muslims will start showing up at these conservative forums. But, you know, as a peaceful … ah, American Muslim I would like to think that I'm not that irrelevant. I would like, I'm just as much an American and Im very deeply saddened about the lives that were lost in Libya. And I hope that we will find justice for them and their families and … But I don't think that this war can ever be won BY JUST THE MILITARY. You have to address the war … You have to bring the Muslims to the table TO ADDRESS THIS. CHRIS PLANTE: I think that … I think everyone agrees that it can't be won JUST by the military, and I that everyone has said that. You, … Can you tell me WHO the head of the uh, Muslim Peace Movement IS? SABA AHMED: Huh, I guess that's me right now, sir. (she's smiling) Thank you. CHRIS PLANTE: Uh, yeah, well uh … (smiling) Thank you. (Crowd clapping)

The other part of that strategy is to make sure nothing is done for the defense of the Christians in the Middle East.

Thank you for making this point! Obama has sent 2 rescue missions to Iraq: one for the Yazidis, the other for the Turkmen. The christians are still on top of that mountain waiting for help.

Please pray for the success of the Washington Summit to Call Attention to Plight of Christians in the Middle East, which opened today. I doubt you will hear anything about this in the mainstream media.

Washington – The deteriorating situation facing millions of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East will be the focus of a bipartisan and ecumenical conference in the nation's capital.

The three-day event sponsored by In Defense of Christians (IDC) will feature speakers from all over the globe.

The IDC Summit for Middle East Christians, whose theme is “Protecting and Preserving Christianity, Where It All Began”, will be the first occasion in history where six Christian Patriarchs from the Middle East will gather together in the United States.

IDC President Toufic Baaklini said, “For too long, Westerners have stood by, silent or unaware, while Christians and other groups in the Middle East have endured discrimination, persecution, and religious cleansing. Today, as the Islamic State continues its genocidal campaign against Christians in Iraq and Syria, the globe is finally awakening to their plight. IDC exists to give voice to these voiceless people. In this hour of their greatest peril, they are in desperate need of support. We must act now.”

Baaklini stated: “To this end, IDC is hosting a historic global Summit for Middle East Christians, September 9-11, in Washington, D.C.

This summit will empower the Middle Eastern Christian Diaspora and energize the American people to stand in solidarity the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. Their survival is vital to stability in the region, and their ability to flourish in their countries of origin has national security implications for the United States.”

Summit attendees will have the opportunity to meet with Members of Congress and their staff, policy makers, diplomats, human rights activists, and religious leaders. Speakers include:

* Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Rai;
* Syriac Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II;
* Archbishop of Washington Donald Cardinal Wuerl;
* Leonardo Cardinal Sandri of the Vatican’s Prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches;
* Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX);
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (R-MI);
* Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA);
* Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL);
* Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL);
* Dr. James Zogby; and
* Nina Shea, Director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

You must understand that you CAN NOT TRUST ANY Muslim ~ NOT ONE!

Muslims are well know for lying about their faith.

MUSLIMS are allowed to LIE and deceive NON MUSLIMS, if it benefits or protects ISLAM. Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie. Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves." Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers. Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths" Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21) Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose. Posted by Atheist

For a better understanding of the issue, read HISTORY of Mohammed ( spelled variously; Mahomet, Muhammed, Mehmet, etc. ).

If you want a detailed history of "Mohammed's History" (spelled variously; Mahomet, Muhammed, Mehmet, etc.) then watch William Federer explain it, from Jan. 25, 2012 at CC Chino Hills, CA. It's a MUST WATCH for everyone,Christians, Athiests and even Muslims!

This Video exposes the "Hidden Truths" and "Goals" behind Radical Islamic Muslims! - (EVEN WORSE);

It's one hour, thirty-two minuites and 26 seconds long, but it's worth your time.
Watch and learn Mohammed's History - Exposing Islam's "Hidden Truths" - Of Radical Muslims.

Also read ISLAM--Religion of Peace?

Click here to view Books by WILLIAM FEDERER from Amazon.com.

Didn't our Heavenly Father, through our Savior tell us...

" thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."

How well we deserve this curse (~so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things~) God has given us,
through the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF, the FASCIST Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama II IS a Muslim.
His actions prove it.
To believe Barack Hussein Obama II, when he claims to be a Christian, is to trust Satan.

Our good Lord really threw the world a curve when He gave the middle east Arabs (Saudi Arabia) ALL the petroleum and natural gas in the world. JUST what the West needs.

The Saudis have another 200 years of petroleum and natural gas reserves, both on- and off-shore.

ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company) was formed in the 1920's by three big American oil companies (not a WHIT of U.S. government involved) and Shell (Dutch). They were the original companies that took on the risky and extremely dangerous business of drilling for the petroleum and natural gas.

It wasn't until the late 1970's to early 1980's that ARAMCO decided to STOP burning off the natural gas that always came up WITH the petroleum. They LIQUIFIED it, bottled it and shipped it out from LNG plants (Liquified Natural Gas).

It wasn't until the early 1980's (1982 I think) that the King of Saudi Arabia, King Fahad, bought out ARAMCO, bought ALL the petroleum and natural gas reserves!
From then on, HE made the money. He personally owned all the resources, which saved the wealthy and important families from quarreling over the wealth.
By 1984 King Fahad was making ONE BILLION dollars every two and a half days. I simply cannot fathom that kind of wealth.

And, like I said, the Saudis have an estimated 200 MORE years of the "black gold" and natural gas.
We were there working for ARAMCO and my husband, a mechanical engineer, worked in the natural gas part.

I went to DAILY Mass because my Saudi boss said that I could since "God was number one and there was always time for God."

Yes, we had a priest on camp. There was also a minister (for all the Protestant denominations) and a vicar for the six Anglicans. Since priests and such weren't ALLOWED in the KSA, the company and the King called them "special teachers." The Protestants and Anglicans only met once a week for their "Sunday service," always held on a Friday morning but we Catholics had a daily 9:00 A.M. Mass.

Where there's will, there's a way. I still go to daily Mass here at home, THANKS to my Saudi boss! God sure works in mysterious ways, doesn't He?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.