Stop White Christian Immigration Now!

Stop White Christian Immigration Now! July 20, 2015

America is under attack.

We can look back over the history of our nation and recall figures like William Cornell way back in 1863, or James Holmes and Dylann Roof from more recently. We can look over the list Wikipedia provides of more than a hundred rampage killers and other examples of mass violence in American history.

What do almost all the perpetrators of these violent rampages have in common? Look at their last names. Find pictures of them and look at their skin color. All of them are clearly descended from European immigrants. Europe is historically a predominantly Christian continent, and surely that cannot be a coincidence.

Perhaps we should not go back to the approach used with Native Americans and with people of Japanese descent during World War II, and begin rounding people up. But isn’t it time, at the very least, to stop those people coming to our great nation any longer, given the havoc they have wreaked here time and time again?

Presumably most readers will recognize the above as a parody of what Franklin Graham recently tweeted about Muslim immigrants. It is one of the things about racial and religious privilege that those in a dominant category have the privilege of being individuals. Whether they shoot someone, smoke marijuana, or blow something up, the perpetrators – if they are white and from a Christian background – will be viewed as atypical radicals, unrelated to oneself and one’s own ethnic or cultural heritage. But people with darker skin, or another religion, are considered examples of what “those people” are like.

I find mass shooting reprehensible. I find all shootings and murders reprehensible. But I also find the characterization of whole religious, cultural, ethnic, and other traditions with a broad brush, in a manner that one would never accept if applied to oneself and one’s own heritage, to also be reprehensible.

For more of the Franklin Graham story, see the posts elsewhere on Patheos by Hemant Mehta and Steve Neumann – two atheists whose outlook on this are noticeably more Christian than Graham’s own. Here’s the text of Graham’s tweet, for those who may have missed it:

Franklin Graham tweet


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • What do almost all the perpetrators of these violent rampages have in
    common? Look at their last names. Find pictures of them and look at
    their skin color. All of them are clearly descended from European

    -Mass shooters in America are disproportionately of Asian ancestry. I think this is due to the nihilism common in Asian philosophy.

    White Christian immigration today is negligible (except from Latin America and maybe Eastern Europe). It’s the war of the cradle you should be thinking about. White liberals today (especially White atheists) have lower birthrates than White conservatives (who are disproportionately Christian).

    • arcseconds

      Waitwaitwait… you are reasoning this on the basis of six people?!?!?

      What calculation have you done to see whether the difference between 6 and the expected 3 is significant at all? (hint: it isn’t)

      Have you considered alternative hypotheses? Like, I don’t know, the vastly more plausible hypothesis that they were mentally ill? The spreadsheet indicates that they were all showing pretty clear signs of mental illness.

      If you insist in this statistically unsound madness of generalising from such a small sample, then the least you could do is see whether this has any explanatory value in other contexts apart from the USA. Are there unusually large numbers of mass killings in Asian countries? What about other countries which are majority-European ancestry but have a minority asian population? Do asians commit disproportionately more mass murders in those countries?

      If not, maybe you shouldn’t be looking for something about Asian culture, but something about the experience of being Asian in the USA.

      Also, you should read up on the fundamental attribution error. There’s a huge cognitive bias in the general population towards attributing things to ‘inherent’ qualities and ignoring relational effects.

      And here you are, reaching immediately for something you think is inherent in Asian culture.

      • My apologies, arcseconds. I’ll make sure to be more careful next time. Though my comment was about as careful as James’s post.

        • arcseconds

          You realise it’s a satire, right?

          • Yes, but even satire should sound convincing.

          • arcseconds

            So you read ‘A Modest Proposal’ and thought it was a convincing argument for eating babies? Or watched The Great Dictator and mistook initially it for a documentary?

            The way satire works is by being absurd, EH. A satirist takes the arguments or attitudes of their opponent and uses them (frequently by outright hyperbole, but changing the target is the method James is using here) to reach an absurd conclusion or to create an absurd situation.

            The only thing that needs to be ‘convincing’ about it is that the target of the satire be recognisable.

            (Of course, the less you have to change to reach absurdity the better it works as an argument, but that’s not at all necessary.)

          • So you read ‘A Modest Proposal’ and thought it was a convincing argument for eating babies?

            -Yeah. Or at least, it tried.

            The way satire works is by being absurd, EH. A satirist takes
            the arguments or attitudes of their opponent and uses them (frequently
            by outright hyperbole, but changing the target is the method James is
            using here) to reach an absurd conclusion or to create an absurd

            -James’s post here isn’t absurd in the sense “A Modest Proposal” is. It’s absurd because it relies on complete misrepresentations of his opponents’ arguments.

            The only thing that needs to be ‘convincing’ about it is that the target of the satire be recognisable.


          • arcseconds

            EH, serious question: do you have some kind of condition which makes it difficult for you to understand non-literal prose, or something of the sort?

            This isn’t the first time I’ve wondered this, and it seems unfair to be unduly harsh if it’s something that isn’t really your fault, and I’m prepared to make reasonable allowances.

            Because I have difficulty imagining a bigger interpretative error than thinking that Swift is trying to make a convincing case for cannibalism and failing.

          • Maybe I have some condition that makes it difficult for me to express the content of my ideas in Internet comments so that others can understand, since I seem to have so much trouble with other commentators on the Internet not understanding what I’m meaning. It’s certainly never been medically diagnosed, if it exists. But, yeah, I understand that prose can be non-literal and that Swift wasn’t actually advocating anyone eat babies, but was satirizing the failure of proposed solutions to Irish social problems to ever be implemented. The thing is, he made his satirical ‘Modest Proposal’ buttressed by so good a case as to make the idea of eating babies sound far more plausible to the reader. This kind of logic is especially powerful, as it makes readers question their sanity and reasonableness. James’s post here is very far from making anyone question their sanity or reasonableness, as it doesn’t even get the other side’s arguments right, as non-Muslim Whites in the U.S. just are not disproportionately inclined to mass shootings or (to my knowledge) any other type of crime (except maybe drunk driving). If they were, James might have a point.

            Did you read my Quotes page?
            Or my Strange Utopia?

            Maybe they can give the answer to your question, or at least, inform your opinion of it.

          • arcseconds

            If you read ‘A Modest Proposal’ and were swayed in one iota to thinking that eating children is a better idea than you formally thought, then it’s not just your understanding of satire that’s in question, it’s your morality ( and for that matter your understanding of the horror most people feel at even hurting babies, let alone cooking at eating them).

            Normal people do not read Swift and think ‘gosh, maybe he’s right, maybe we really ought to eat babies… wait, is he having us on?’ The whole idea is completely unthinkable. No-one except maybe you questions their sanity on reading this.

            (They might not pick up on the satire, in which case they’ll just find the whole notion and Swift himself completely monstrous.)

            Does The Great Dictator try to faithfully reproduce arguments that Hitler and his buddies actually gave? How about American Psycho? A faithful rendition of what advertising executives are actually like, down to the serial killing? Does Shadow of the Vampire fail as a satire because no studio actually hired a literal vampire as their star?

            No, EH, you’re just completely wrong here. There is no requirement to accurately represent your opponents in satire. The purpose is to make them look ridiculous, and exaggeration is as good a method as any.

            Anyway, you clearly don’t really care all that much about James’s alleged misrepresentation: it was more important to you to make a bigoted and preposterous point about Asians.

            But in fact he’s not misrepresenting Franklin at all. Franklin doesn’t say anything resembling ‘disproportionately inclined’. It’s all just naked appeal to emotion (‘scawy Muslim scawy – WARR! Stars and Stripes Forever!’)

            I know you’d like to think that your fellow anti-Muslim crusaders are basing their views on statistics. But really, they’re not: by even looking at the rates you’ve done more than most people ever will about anything.

        • arcseconds

          I’m renewing my vows to reward people who graciously concede when they’re wrong (as well as to do better in that direction myself). So upvote!

          (The idea is that we’ve all got far too much face involved in ‘being right all along’ and never having to admit to being wrong, rather than actually being right, which — unless we’re exceptionally lucky and perspicacious — usually entails being wrong rather a lot. “Oh, look I’m wrong about that” shouldn’t be a defeat at the hands of a hated rival, but victory over ignorance!

          And, while I’m being nice to people, that’s something you do do, which unfortunately is an unusual quality: you are actually prepared to just say “OK, I’m revising my viewpoint.” (Although sometimes it takes a fair bit to get you to that point!))

      • Tom Saw

        The blog piece was more a critique of the ridiculous claim that mass shootings are a white phenomenon. They aren’t. They’re extremely rare. But, when they do occur, the shooter is not disproportionately likely to be white, contrary to the diversity cult’s claims which are really just thinly veiled attempts to demonize white men.

        • The “attempts to demonize white people” are in fact attempts to help white people understand why they shouldn’t demonize other people. That you can only see the matter in terms of who is being demonized, and not as a critique of demonization itself, shows exactly what the problem is.

          • Tom Saw

            Not at all. Irresponsible outlets have been claiming that white people are more likely to go on shooting sprees than other races. That is verifiably untrue. Using untrue claims to disparage a racial group is demonization. That is exactly what is happening with mass shootings and white people.

            Interesting how those demonizing white people are denying they are doing anything of the sort by claiming that they are merely “helping white people understand”. Nonsense. Promoting untrue claims about whites being more likely to engage in mass shootings is demonizing.

          • Demonization of any sort is wrong. Trying to ensure that others get demonized more than the group you associate with is the biggest problem.

          • Tom Saw

            I’m against demonization in general. But, if we’re going to demonize, let us at least be accurate. I see articles like this pop up a lot:


            The basic message is “white male privilege definitely exists and is the main cause of mass shootings”!

            The problem is, first, white male privilege doesn’t even really exist. But, putting that aside, white men are no more likely to go on mass shootings than men of other races. For garden variety murders, whites are dramaticallyLESS likely to be offenders than, for example, blacks.

            So, all these denunciations of “white male privilege” isn’t some sophisticated sociological critique. It is a demonization, propaganda tactic that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

          • Sven2547

            white male privilege doesn’t even really exist

            Speaking in my full-time capacity as a white male, I assure you it does.

          • Tom Saw

            I’ll rephrase that. It may exist. But so does female privilege. So does black privilege. Every “identity” has privileges and drawbacks.

            Given that the supposedly evil white men have invented and achieved the vast majority of good things while the bad things they have supposedly done have also been done by other civilizations, any privilege white men have is more earned than the privileges other groups have.

          • And there we have it, the reason people who have privilege pretend they do not – they want to believe that everything they have they deserve. I can understand why that delusion is comforting. But unless “earned” includes “enslaved and conquered and profitted from doing so” then you are not being honest about the whole picture. And I say that as a white American with the privileges that have gone along with being in that category.

          • Tom Saw

            Slavery is pretty much a universal human practice. It just so happens that white countries were among the first to abolish it.

            And, fine, let us pretend that white americans have all this privilege in America. Why are nonwhite immigrants in such a rush to immigrate to a nation in which they will be “oppressed”?

            Surely they’d be better off staying in a nation in which there aren’t enough whites to have white privilege.

            Maybe you’ll endorse immigration restrictions to protect the poor immigrants from the evil white privilege that definitely exists?

          • This sort of generalization about “white countries” simply doesn’t work. The Southern states, and religious groups like the Southern Baptists, fought hard to defend the practice. And the fact that you are so defensive of your own privilege ought to help you to understand why others might desire to share in it.

          • Tom Saw

            The southern states haven’t had slavery since the 1860s because the (white dominated) northern union government abolished it and won a war over it.

            A lot of non white nations had slavery far after the practice ended in the south.

            Also, I will again repeat, white male privilege really isn’t a thing. There are tons of examples of overt discrimination against whites and males. Whether it be affirmative action and quotas that a discriminate against both whites and men or the legal system that discriminates against men (but not whites).

            These are explicit and obvious discrimination.

            All the supposed biases in favor of white men are, for the most part, myths. Take the gender pay gap for example. That is a myth:


            Anti black police bias is accounted for by higher black crime rates rather than irrational bias.

            In other words, almost all of the actual discrimination is AGAINST whites and men rather than in favor of them.

          • Sven2547

            It may exist. But so does female privilege. So does black privilege. Every “identity” has privileges and drawbacks.

            For white males, the ‘pros’ vastly outweigh the ‘cons’. Indeed, the few ‘cons’ there are tend to be side-effects of centuries of the white male power structure in America.

          • Tom Saw

            Nonsense. There are tons of example of explicit discrimination against whites and men. Whether it be affirmative action, legal discrimination against men, or the constant demonization of the straight white male.

            All the supposed discrimination against women and blacks is implicit. And thus unverifiable. But, it says something that we have tons of indisputable examples of anti white male discrimination but the supposed examples of discrimination against women and non whites can, largely, be debunked.

            The wage gap, for example, has long been shown to be all about life choices rather than discrimination. That was a big supposed “male privilege” that is easily debunked.

            As for police discrimination, that basically comes down to blacks committing crimes at a higher rate than whites. Interracial crime is much more black on white than vice versa. So, if there is any racial profiling, it is based in actual crimes rates rather than racism.

            The actual power structure today is dominated by feminists and multiculturalists. Feminists and liberals who mobilize their base by demonizing straight white men, sadly.

            And, you’re delusions about white men having all this unearned privilege is just evidence that you have bought totally into the actual power structure’s propaganda.

          • Sven2547

            All the supposed discrimination against women and blacks is implicit. And thus unverifiable.

            Oh wow. You’re that divorced from reality.

          • Tom Saw

            Sure I am. File this under: projection.

          • Elsa

            “The basic message is “white male privilege definitely exists and is the main cause of mass shootings””? Where did you get that?
            The main message is “don’t base your judgements of an entire race or religion on a few examples of clearly troubled people – you don’t do it for your own race/religion, so why do it for a different one?”

        • Sven2547

          The blog piece was more a critique of the ridiculous claim that mass shootings are a white phenomenon.

          Swing and a miss.

          • Tom Saw

            How was this a “miss”?

            Mass shooters are not disproportionately white despite what the media seems intent on having everyone believe.

          • Sven2547

            The blog piece was a satirical critique of the right-wing shouts to halt the immigration of Muslims into the US. The “miss” was you getting the message completely wrong.

          • Tom Saw

            I was referring to the blog piece that I wrote and was posted in the comments here about whites and mass shootings. So, it seems that you have missed.

          • arcseconds

            ‘The blog post’ is not very specific, and could easily be taken to refer to the blog post we’re reading here (it is, after all, the most proximate blog post to this discussion). You don’t even identify yourself as the author of that post in that particular comment.

            I initially thought you were talking about James’s post, too, until I realised your statement made a lot more sense if you were talking about the post EH linked to.

            James’s post doesn’t have to be statistically accurate: it is satire. So correcting it is a bit beside the point.

            Now, it might be worth raising the point that white male shooters aren’t disproportionate nevertheless, but an ‘I realise this is satire, but nevertheless I feel I must make the point that…’ would help a lot here. Otherwise people are just going to think that you think you’re offering a direct critique of the post, and not appreciating it’s actually satire, or having silly expectations of satire, or just having a knee-jerk reaction to anything that mentions one of your personal irritants.

          • Tom Saw

            Somebody else posted my blog post in the comments and I was responding to the responses to my post. I was not responding to the satire above.

          • arcseconds

            Yes, I understand that, but Sven didn’t, and nor did I on first read of your response. I’m just suggesting a few things that would have made it a bit clearer.

      • Tom Saw

        I understand that the sample size of mass shooters is too small to use it to stereotype racial groups… I wrote the blog post about the myth of white male mass shooters. My claim isn’t about asians going on shooting rampages, it was a critique of the ridiculous notion that mass shootings are disproportionately white men.

        Mass shootings are rare, but the perpetrators are about as likely to be white as is the average american. So, the articles claiming that whiteness is a cause of mass shootings are factually unsound.

        • arcseconds

          Good, I’m glad you’re:

          (1) not statistically incompetent, and

          (b) agree with me that Enopoletus was going off into the weeds and off the grounds and through the woods with his theory that six asian mass shooters in the USA is due to asian nihilistic philosophy.

  • Muslims are more than twenty times as likely to commit terrorist attacks as everyone else:

  • I love how he brings up the treatment of the Japanese during WWII as though that’s something worth emulating. That takes a special kind of hate, that.

    • Graham’s implication is definitely incorrect, as most of the Muslim world is not in a state of war against the West. The Japanese, however, were legitimately scary in World War II, so internment was justified (though it could have been carried out with more respect to their rights). Undoubtedly, most of those interned were innocent, but even a few potential Fifth Columnists could easily justify Japanese internment. What do you suggest the U.S. Government should have done with Japanese on the West Coast during WW II?

      • Sven2547

        What do you suggest the U.S. Government should have done with Japanese on the West Coast during WW II

        The same thing as the Germans and Italians on the east coast. Absolutely nothing.

        • Why?

          • Sven2547

            Due process, inalienable human rights, etc. Kinda the whole basis our republic is founded upon.

          • My reasoning as to why the Italians and Germans shouldn’t have been interned is
            1. There were way too many of them (just like there were way too many Japanese in Hawaii to realistically intern).
            2. On average, they were more assimilated than Japanese in America.

          • Brian Westley

            Some German and Italians were interned, but that was less than 1% of the German/Italian 1st/2nd gen US population vs. nearly 100% of the continental US Japanese population

      • I’m with Sven on this, in part. I would’ve recommended a vigorous internal monitoring, but certainly not internment. As you say yourself, there were too many to do it well. I’d argue that you can’t take away someone’s land, property and livelihood and put them in a camp while even pretending that you believe they have rights.
        And I think you’re missing the big reason why the Japanese were the ones interred: They’re Japanese. A visible Other..

      • Michael Wilson

        Enopoletus, I think in time of war, it is fair to suspend some due process. It can be infered without direct evidence for specific individuals that a population is colluding with the enemy and measures taken. Morally I think FDR was justified if the threat was sever enough. The if is whether the Japanese were so great a threat to justify internment. I’m not sure they were. Mind you that is a sliding bar, and I do think racism played a role in deciding, that it was scary at base to be attacked by an oriental than a white. But other cases of internment, the boer war, Cuba, perhaps others, may well have been justified by military expediency.

  • Whether they shoot someone, smoke marijuana, or blow something up, the
    perpetrators – if they are white and from a Christian background – will
    be viewed as atypical radicals, unrelated to oneself and one’s own
    ethnic or cultural heritage.

    -It’s all about proportion. It’s not like White Christians are disproportionately likely to do any of these things.

    • Sven2547

      So a higher proportional likelihood to do something is a valid reason to stereotype, even when that proportion is still tiny?

      • Michael Wilson

        Depends on what your stereotype is. As we go through a day we let stereotypes influence all are interactions. A fool though believes others are charactitures or wildly overrates conformity to a stereotype. That happens a lot. A slight perception of Increased risk can magnify the protective response considerably. When others see this it seems offensive and queer. A woman that cliches her purse when a conservatively dressed black man approaches is acting foolishly, the odds he is a theif is low based on his attire is low even accounting for race, it’s just rare to have a purse snached by a guy with a suit and tie. On the other hand people are probably robbed in minority neighborhoods than white ones (but perhaps not so much after adjusting for income) that it justifies a little cost to avoid a minority neighborhood. And of course so much humor comes from playing on stereotypes to an absurde degree, which is funny because we accept both and underlying truth and its absurdity.

  • Michael Wilson

    I disagree with Graham’s assessment. While a conservative evangelist might want to tar all Muslims as followers of a demonic religion contray to his own good faith, American Muslims are far less interested in violent jihad as European Eastern Muslims. To best fight the war against jihadis it is necessary to realize many Muslims want peaceful interactions with the west and to support them vs anti western fanatics. Graham’s statement is offensive to Muslims off all ideologies and drives them from seeking accommodation with pro western forces and leads them to side with jihadists and anti western leftist.

    But this is not a reflection of his racist views. He cites penalties against German immigrants to.

    • Scott Todd

      They’re integrating so well in Britain, aren’t they.

    • I don’t think Graham’s statement significantly helps or hurts Muslim-Christian relations in America. But Graham ignores America’s long history of religious tolerance, and his desired policies, if implemented, would bring the U.S. several steps closer to theocracy. And, it is true, there’s no way to fight militant and other Islamists without the help of Muslims, just as there’s no way to fight the threat of Christian theocracy without Christians. Fortunately, the threat of Christian theocracy is weak and fading.

    • The War Nerd has a theory that the nations with the most recent histories of being imperialist powers are those most likely to raise jihadis. Thus, the over-representation of Muslims from Belgium, England, and France in the Islamic State’s armies.

      • Michael Wilson

        I would attribute that to the large numbers of Muslim immigrants from their colonies. colonization became a route for poor Muslims to migrate to these rich nations. Muslims in the US had a more complicated route and our muslims are more talented and more diverse and dispersed so are less emeshed within their own communities and more in touch with western ones.

        • There were hardly any Muslims in Belgium’s colonies. The War Nerd hypothesizes that those nations with recent histories of being imperialist powers are more likely to have had a history of their young men going to foreign lands to rule over foreign peoples, which inspires Muslims in those countries to do so today.

          • Michael Wilson

            Hmmm, I doubt that theory. The largest contributors to ISIS are middle eastern states that were colonized. They weren’t inspired by their history of ruling foreign people, they’re inspired by the Romance of the pre European colonial past. Sweden wasn’t an important colonial state but it too has lots of jihadists. You are right about Belgium. I think then it is not so much the colonial rout, but simply that Europe had permissive immigration generally and is closer to the mideast. If Mexico were a muslim nation, (or Canada a poor Muslim nation) we may have the same problem the Europeans do.

          • You’re right about Sweden. The War Nerd pointed out that, interestingly, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, has contributed fewer troops than Belgium to the cause.

          • Michael Wilson

            Right, I speculate in part ISIS appeals to Arabs particularly. Indonesian Islam probably feels remote from the middle-eastern Islamic view of jihad and Europe, while just as conservative, there is no pre industrial age Indonesian caliphate or history of jihad.

    • ConservativeAmerican

      You are seriously having mental breakdowns if you think for one moment that Muslims as a group are not bent on our destruction. Theirs is not a religion, it is an ideology ( not many ideologies as you state but only one single ideology) that declares every single person that is not a Muslim to be an infidel and put to death if they refuse to bow before and accept Islam and their Allah. Their goal is nothing less than World domination , by force of death against any and all who do not agree with them. You need to do a little investigation of your own and discover exactly what they belief. Don’t believe the lies told you by this administration and the news media. Get their book and read it for yourself. Your very statements show that you do not understand them in the least.

      • It is always interesting to hear from someone who does not know any Muslims and has never read the Qur’an.

      • Michael Wilson

        At different times the same could have been said of Judaism and Christianity. Christianity, “as a group” changed its understanding of how to treat unbelievers after a number of brutal wars. The same could happen for Islam. Maybe they aren’t enough, but many who identify as Muslim don’t believe in spreading their creed by force. Even if Muhammad believed in force that doesn’t mean his followers must, how few of Jesus’s teachings do Christians follow today?

        • ConservativeAmerican

          Apparently you have never really studied much History have you ??? Christianity has never had any authority other than the Scriptures known as the Bible which is a total book of redemption and peace. There is not one instance or one verse in the New Testament that tells followers to do anything other than witness to all and to be kind to all. It admonishes all believers to love their enemies. ( Not bow down to them nor allow them to destroy them or kill them, but to love them) Apparently you haven’t studied it much either….

          • Michael Wilson

            Christians also accept the Old Testament as scripture, and there genocide is celebrated for some. These scriptures combined with ideas about the importance of proper doctrine for salvation and lotalty to a divine king have led to Christian leaders endorsing a number of brutal wars and pogroms. The inquisition, catharginian crusade, the baltic crusades, slaughter of the Saxons, wars against American Aboriginals, 30 years war and others. You may say that none of these are true expressions of Christianity but a muslim could claim that all the Jihads are not true expressions of Islam. Not many will, and certainly Muhammad was as violent in his promotion of Islam as any Christian crusader, but people are very good at shaping religion to new realities so I find no cause to discriminate against people just because they’re Muslim.

          • ConservativeAmerican

            So called Christian Crusaders were reacting to the takeover of Jerusalem by the Muslims and left their homelands to defend the city of Jerusalem from takeover by the Muslims who were taking over the birthplace of Christianity.. Christians did not invade Muslim territory for no reason. They did not attack Muslims for no reason and thankfully, that period ended when it did. Having said that, I will not refer to that period since it has no bearing on the action of today’s takeover by Muslims by what ever means necessary. They do not and will not assimilate into a country and leave it alone. That is part of their ideology of world domination. If you want a prime example, look at Great Britain today. Every place Muslims are allowed to immigrate in appreciable numbers, trouble always follows. Always. Look at Australia , same thing. It is simply their goal and plan to do whatever is necessary to dominate the world and implement Sharia Law.

          • Michael Wilson

            The crusader wars I mentioned were against other Christians and native European pagans. It has nothing to do with Jerusalem. The point is that at that time if you were following European news, you could conclude Christianity was about violent domination, forced conversion, and world conquest. But it changed. Islam for the most part has been the same as medival Christianity but not every Muslim agrees this is how it should be, and like Christianity and Judaism I’m optimistic about an Islam that abandons force to ache ive its aims, and a way forward is not assuming every Muslim must want to conquer the world with a sword.

          • ConservativeAmerican

            I will be though with this after these last comments, you may have the last word if you so choose. Your history is a little off base. There were very isolated incidents of so called Christian violence in any age , even the Middle Ages, other than the Crusades. Christian in those isolated instances were not by < followers of Christ as such but were akin to the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. They are political foes who adopted the name tags but do not truly represent Protestants or Catholics who real followers or adherents of Jesus the Christ , or followers of the teachings of the Bible which is the only real authority of Christianity. Islam on the other hand requires it's adherents to also follow the dictates of the Koran, and the teachings of the Koran require them to bring about world domination by whatever means necessary , including force and violence. Islam requires them to adhere to Sharia Law which is very violent. It requires women to be relegated to second place status. Ir requires , " infidels" to either convert or be put to death. There is no comparison between Christianity and Islam in the requirements of their respective followers. As I stated earlier, you may have the last word….

      • Sven2547

        Theirs is not a religion, it is an ideology ( not many ideologies as you state but only one single ideology)

        It’s genuinely hard to be as ignorant about a major religion as you are, here. You need to actively hide from, or ignore, vast amounts of factual information.

        • ConservativeAmerican

          Listen up hot shot. I have taught Islam for more years than I care to remember. You are the only one who is abjectly ignorant about their one ideology. At its core , it is one ideology of World domination brought about by any means necessary. Coercion, lying and breaking contracts and treaties are perfectly acceptable as the ends justify the means. Up to and including the murder of any man , woman or child who will not convert to Islam and swear allegiance to Allah. Try getting a copy of the Koran and actually read it. Not snippets or get your information from a third party or anyone else. Read it for yourself and then you will see just how stupid your statement really is.

          • Sven2547

            I have taught Islam for more years than I care to remember.

            If this bloviation is what you call “teaching”, I’m not very impressed.

          • ConservativeAmerican

            It doesn’t matter what you think for in reality, it doesn’t alter truth in any manner. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is an ideology of world domination by any means necessary and requires all adherents to swear allegiance to Allah only or face death. They recognize no allegiance to any country, government or peoples. Lying, cheating, giving their written signature to treaties then breaking the treaty or their word is acceptable within the Islam ideology because the ends justify the means. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of Islam or a liar. I find it interesting that all of the above things have been spoken clearly by Muslim leaders for years yet there are so many people who think they know more than the very leaders of Islam.

          • Sven2547

            They recognize no allegiance to any country, government or peoples. Lying, cheating, giving their written signature to treaties then breaking the treaty or their word is acceptable within the Islam ideology because the ends justify the means.

            And yet this is so laughably false. No allegiance to country or government? Anyone who has spent two minutes looking at middle-eastern politics knows that’s complete rubbish.

            And this business about lying and cheating. It’s the standard right-wing willful ignorance about taqiya, which isn’t even a Sunni belief. For someone who “teaches” Islam, you sure don’t know much about it.

          • ConservativeAmerican

            You are either really misguide or very ignorant. Sunni Muslims do not disavow that teaching whatsoever. They never have and they never will. They are not as radical in some ways as Shiite Muslims but are as radical in others. They do not recognize each other as be The legitimate voice of Islam because they do differ in the founder of their particular sect. But at the core, both do indeed follow the Koran , ( spell it any way you want, I choose the Americanized version of the name ), which specifically calls for allegiance to none but Allah. If you do not know that , then it is you who doesn’t know very much about Islam and its ideology. Are there many Muslims who do not know at the ideology of Islam truly is ? Of course there are. Do they all know what Sharia law demands, probably not. But that doesn’t change the fact of world domination and implementation of Sharia law as the law of the entire world by Islam and its adherents. Iran may be the supreme example, Iran has a President and a secular form of government but the power rests with the ruling Cleric, not the President. A complete dialogue or discussion cannot take place in snippets on a thread such as this. Bottom line is that you aren’t nearly as smart as you want others to think you are. You’ve probably Googled something to say a few words to make you seem knowledgeable but in reality , you aren’t. You may have the last retort on here. Most folks like you seem to need that.

          • Sven2547

            Repeating easily-verifiable lies while flinging accusations of ignorance and bad faith is not a substitute for sound argumentation.

          • I have taught the Qur’an (although I no longer do so at present) and can provide evidence in the form of syllabuses and other information about my course on China and the Islamic Middle East at Butler University. What is your name, where have you taught, and what explains why you seem not to know what the Qur’an actually says about the things you mention?

          • ConservativeAmerican

            Do not give my name nor address on public medium nor do I publish the name of my school on open threads as this one. Suffice it to say that I have a Bachelor’s , 2 Master’s and a PhD all earned from two different mainline accredited University and Seminaries. 2 Masters thesis’ , and a Doctoral thesis with completion of my orals and successful defense of my thesis. Personally it matters not to me if you want to publish the name of a school, perhaps you went there perhaps you didn’t. You do not know as much as you think if you have never read the Koran for yourself. I know very well the subject matter that I have taught, it seems as though you , however, do not. What Muslims say about the Koran isn’t as important as the book itself and what it requires of those who follow its theology and ideology. You go and have a nice day and rest on your papers, if you have any, real life, real people and a real reading of the Koran itself carry much more weight than any syllabus you may or may not have. I have probably taught it as much or more than you to Master’s level students. I dare say my students are more well versed in Islam and its ideology than yours. You may have the last retort, I am very comfortable with the truth as I know it to be. Any further communication with you would be an exercise in futility and quite frankly, I do care to invest any more time in it.

          • It is very convenient that you wish to assert authority while providing no evidence that you have any actual expertise whatsoever.

            Why run away? Why not stay and discuss specific passages in the Qur’an? One of us would learn something, and perhaps both of us would? Why prefer your prejudice and bigotry to accurate information and education?

          • ConservativeAmerican

            Not running away. Simply choosing to not waste any more time with someone I know who is not telling the truth. I am not guilty of any bigotry and am quite certain of my education unlike yours. I choose not to accept any group whose entire ideology is predicated on world domination by whatever means necessary to accomplish that. If you deny that is the goal of Islam then you are either disingenuous, a liar or you are ignorant. Either way, I will not continue this conversation any longer. You may have your last retort.

          • You dishonestly said in your last comment that you were done, and that I could have the last retort. Whereas the truth is that you were called on your claims made without evidence, both about the Qur’an and about your own expertise. Either provide evidence to support your claims, or actually let me have the last retort. Either way you will have been exposed as a liar, and so it is entirely up to you which way you want to be exposed – by your abrupt departure, or by a detailed examination of the evidence.

            Perhaps I should blog through the Qur’an. It would be an interesting series…

            And for the record, my education and my current teaching position are verifiable online. I am not anonymous.

          • Michael Wilson

            An interesting idea, though one to be undertaken in humility, I like your work James but I would doubt your expertise in the Koran is anywhere close to your expertise in the New Testament. I have found that there has been considerably less achademic scholarship in this area. But I think it would be fun to discuss nevertheless.

            Regarding conservative American, I hope that sort of arguing skill is not what can get a PhD. It seems that there is a sever disconnect between an ideal expression of a religion and how it is carried out. If Christians followed the ideal of the New Testament they would all share their belongings, but even liberal Christians aren’t comfortable handing the title to their car or deed to their house and Bank account information to their pastors. Sure that sort of thing will always inspire some Christian to think this needs to be done, and Joshua will inspire some to think that the enemies of the church should be killed, but are these real concerns among people that Christians will establish some Stalinist state? Whatever Muhamed thought Muslims should do does not matter as much as what contemporary Muslims want. Most don’t want to be at war with unbelievers even if they don’t respect them. Muslims like the generals in Egypt or the late Shah of Iran say they are Muslim but violently oppose those that put Islam ahead of self interested trade and foreighn policy. I don’t think it impossible that future imams will find away to rationalize this whitin the parameters of Islam.

            And if every Muslim is a potential convert to militant jihad, isn’t every Christian a potential convert to Islam?

          • Yes, that is definitely the idea – not “here’s an expert view of the Qur’an” but “here is a New Testament scholar’s perspective.”

          • Sven2547

            Why is it that all the self-proclaimed PhDs I see online always write at the level of a high school freshman?

            2 Masters thesis’

            * two Masters theses.

  • If Ben Affleck wants to fight back against an attitude that could be called islamophobia, he should be talking to Franklin Graham, not Sam Harris.