National Review Writer: We Need to Declare War on Islam, Bar Muslims from the Country, and Arrest Them if They Are Here. But Don't You Call Me a Bigot.

Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic takes a look at who National Review gets to write on anti-Sharia law, David Yerushalmi, and finds some interesting things:

[Yerushalmi] heads an organization [Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)--a name you gotta love] which argues for measures like this:

- It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam. 

-The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma. 

-The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation. 

-No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.

Yet Yerushalmi resents those who suggest his advocacy of anti-Sharia regulations in the United States might be linked to bigotry.

As Conor Friedersdorf tweeted: "what National Review will apologize for in a decade or two."

SANE, unsurprisingly, also vows that "Any world view, ideology, or -ism that promotes directly or indirectly the elimination of national existence and the establishment of a world state is our foe. So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Wait, I thought John Derbyshire was the (now fired) token NR racist? /snark

  • Mo||

    As we speak, Lonewacko is interviewing to cover their IllegalImmigrationBeat.

  • BakedPenguin||

    MoneyedInterests! Kochtopus!

  • ||

    Hey, BP, do you have the courage to ask the hard questions and post them on YouTube? Do you?!?

  • BakedPenguin||

    I tried to! Yet I was foiled by MassiveCorruption and MoneyedInterests.

  • ||

    I thought Lonewacko died....

  • SugarFree||

    Only in our hearts.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Too bad about that pesky 1st Amendment.

    Also - I bet this guy thinks Netanyahu is Likud in name only.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Practically speaking, who will staff gas stations and convenience stores if these people get their way? Who?

  • T||

    Hindus. Duh.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Really? Then where will I get my Indian food from?

  • T||

    Mexicans, if the Houston area is any guide.

  • RBS||

    Mexicans, is there any cuisine they can't master?

  • ||

    Organic Mayonnaise.

  • ||

    Trouble is, there are people can't tell Hindus and Sikhs from Muslims.

    I seem to recall some kid in Florida attacking some Indians who were Hindus in Florida during Gulf War I thinking he was striking a blow against Saddam. I can't seem to find any record of it though.

  • KDN||

    Many years ago where I grew up there were some racist kids that spraypainted swastikas all over a local Hindu temple. The Hindus never bothered to call the police or have it investigated because the red swastika is good luck; it only came to light because some reporter noticed it and asked them about it.

  • ||

    and this includes libertarianism

    Well, of course it does. It's not like they were exactly hiding that in the first place. TEAM RED hates liberty as much as TEAM BLUE.

  • ||

    Tulpa?

    John?

    Epi has spoken!!!

  • The Hammer||

    I think they're both busy writing their followup column for National Review.

  • The Hammer||

    I think they're both busy writing their followup column for National Review.

  • ||

    Are they writing it in triplicate? If so, you forgot your third post.

  • Wilt Chamberlain||

    Go to their website and ctrl-f "libertarian." I found these two gems: "libertarian nihilists," and "homosexual activist libertarian lawyers."

  • ||

    Well, my girlfriend said I was technically a nihilist for saying I didn't think there was such a thing as a soul that survived death of the body housing it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Did you quote The Big Lebowski back at her?

  • ||

    That sort of makes sense in the Christian rhetorical usage which posited nihilism as the logical conclusion of rationalism.

  • Trespassers W||

    "Posited" is a good word here. Because it's not the same as "actually made a valid argument".

  • John Thacker||

    This one is, I think, in fierce response to articles also at NR trying to talk people out of the anti-sharia law nonsense. The more reasonable folks over there, like Ramesh Ponnuru, are on the sane side of the debate. But they do have their crazies.

  • tarran||

    -The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.

    Enough with these wussy half measures.

    They should be doused with oil, crucified on I-95 between DC and New York, and set on fire at night!

    No religion has ever survived that sort of treatment!

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Nobody expects the Flaming Exhibition!

  • Mo||

    NRO picked the wrong year to turn on comments.

  • BarryD||

    ...and to quit sniffing glue...

    OTOH this guy sounds like he IS sniffing glue.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Yet Yerushalmi resents those who suggest his advocacy of anti-Sharia regulations in the United States might be linked to bigotry.

    He gets a C in Bigotry 101. If you want to be a proper bigot, it is necessary but not sufficient to deny your bigotry; you must also accuse those who call you on your bigotry of having their own bigotry.

  • John||

    I bet Kathryn Jean Lopez hired this clown. This kind of stupid could only come from her.

    And don't forget kids NRO fired John Derbyshire.

  • Brandybuck||

    Can Yerushalmi explain how Talmudic Law is fundamentally different form Sharia Law? What's the deep philosophical difference between a Halal deli and a Kosher deli?

  • John||

    Talmudic Law is for the tribe. They really don't give a shit if the non tribe keep it. Sharia Law is supposed to be enforced on the entire world.

  • IceTrey||

    Talmudic Law says that all non Jews are no better than cattle and should be made into slaves for the Chosen People. So I think that affects the whole world.

  • John||

    Not true. Slavery of even Jews was acceptable under Talmudic Law. Of course no country today lives under such law.

  • BarryD||

    Hence, to this day, we associate "tote that barge, lift that bale!" with slavery, and "make a movie, do my taxes!" with lucrative professions.

  • ||

    One of the oldest and most well known Talmudic concepts is adherence to the Law of the Land, i.e. the secular laws of whatever country you live in. That seems to be at odds with the alleged wish by Sharia law proponents to replace secular law.

  • Brandybuck||

    Okay then, what's the difference between those Muslims who want to force courts to recognize Sharia Law, and those Christian Dominionists who want courts to recognize their particular interpretation of Deuteronomic law?

  • Brandybuck||

    Or in other words, why is Islam an exception to the 1st Amendment? What is it about Sharia Law that makes Islam into such an abomination that it must be excluded from our shores?

  • SugarFree||

    He's white on the right side of his face, and that other guy is white on the left side of his face. It's clear who the evil one is, moran.

  • BarryD||

    The pickles?

  • ||

    Sometimes, I don't get this obsession with the label "Bigot". If you legitimately think the religion of Islam embodies Evil (and I think one can rationally conclude that, just as one can rationally conclude that Religion itself is a net societal ill), how does proscribing policy actions (regardless of their Constitutionality) to eradicate this Evil imply "Bigotry"? And even if it does imply such, what's the relevance?

  • BarryD||

    Agreed. And I miss Chris Hitchens, who actually had a consistent view of religion, rather than simply taking sides based on coffee house trends.

  • SugarFree||

    "Bigot" is like "Fascist." It used to actually have a meaning, and is now just a term of abuse meaning "I don't like that you don't like what I like (religious edition.)"

  • Mo||

    If you legitimately think black people embody Evil, how does proscribing policy actions (regardless of their Constitutionality) to eradicate this Evil imply "Bigotry"?

  • BarryD||

    Skin color is not a choice, and can be scientifically shown to be separate from "evilness".

    Religion is not part of anyone's biological makeup, and babies are all born atheists.

    Prejudice about someone's religion or lack thereof might prove to be incorrect, or might be unfair, but there's little equivalence between bigotry about melanin, and one's view of a religion.

  • Mo||

    Sure there is. A person's religion tells you very little about them, except that it gives you about a 2/3s shot at guessing their parent's religion. My wife and her brother are both Catholics raised in the same family and yet they have vastly different world views and disagree wildly on many aspects of the religion.

  • wareagle||

    you defeat your own argument -- if your wife and brother were both black, they would be black, whether they liked it or not. There may be facets of black culture that they argued over, but neither could leave the race.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They'd be forced out if they voted republican.

  • T||

    A belief system is a wee tad bit different than genetics.

  • Mo||

    If you ask 5 different people of any given religion what their religion means, you'll get 5 different answers. An ultra-Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn have vastly different views than a Reform Jew in the Upper East Side. Yet, they could both be described as New York Jews.

  • BarryD||

    Sure. The fact that the classification of their belief systems is more granular than "Jew" does not have any bearing on the fact that a baby is born with genetics for skin color, and no religious beliefs whatever.

  • Mo||

    And if children weren't raised by their parents, they would never get them. The vast majority of people inherit their religion from their parents, though the specific beliefs they adopt may be wildly different.

  • wareagle||

    read your own words, Mo: the religion inherited may or may not be the religion followed. Race does not come with that option.

  • BarryD||

    They may also inherit an old car and a few acres outside town from their parents.

    Does that make the title of a car, or the deed to property, genetic, like skin color?

  • ||

    Religion can be a product of where you were born and to what family you were born into more than of any choices you made.

  • jacob||

    Part of the problem with these dipshits like SANE is that they rely on a belief of the collective, not the individual. Saying that "No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America" implies that any and all muslims are bad, and that there is no chance for an individual to perform on his own. This is the definition of bigotry.

  • BarryD||

    So everyone who votes Democratic, and a good number of those who vote Republican, is automatically a bigot?

    I won't argue, but that sort of changes the way the word is used.

  • BarryD||

    (Not meant to be supportive of the GOP, just noting that the Democratic Party of 2012 is fundamentally based on viewing individuals only as part of a collective, whereas even far-right SoCons actually do acknowledge individuality even when they want to throw people in prison for expressing it.)

  • jacob||

    So everyone who votes Democratic, and a good number of those who vote Republican, is automatically a bigot?

    Sorry, argument fail. Nothing I said is related to your statement.

  • BarryD||

    So you don't understand the relationship of identity groups (beliefs of the collective) and American politics?

  • jacob||

    I understand it just fine. It had nothing to do with barring muslims from entering America, now does it?

  • BarryD||

    It has everything to do with your post, which was about viewing people as part of a collective, instead of individuals. That statement, made by you, does not apply only to Muslims.

    A great many Americans do that, all day, every day. That would make them bigots, by your definition.

    That's not an argument, and it never was. I just don't think that simply calling most Americans fundamentally bigots will resolve much, even if it's true.

  • jacob||

    A great many Americans do that, all day, every day. That would make them bigots, by your definition.

    And.....your point is what? It's wrong to call people bigots?

    Your posts are extremely pointless and deficient of any logic, but if they entertain you, more power to you. I suppose it's good you don't see the stupidity behind them.

  • BarryD||

    So you think you're smart because you post stuff that ultimately doesn't have any significance, then you argue about it?

    How old are you, anyway?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Saying that "No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America" implies that any and all muslims are bad

    It doesn't have to imply that though. It could just mean that the risk isn't worth it, and as a Nation State we get to control crosses our borders. So tough crap.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    +1

    Empirically speaking, I'd probably bet that this guy really is some kind of a bigot too. Just my best educated guess. And probably a giant asshole. And I probably disagree with a whole crapload of his political ideas.

    But in context of this blog post, it's nothing more than cheap Ad Hominem. Not that I'm always capable from abstaining from that either.

  • BarryD||

    BTW while this guy (whom I have never heard of) does sound fucking insane, I'm perfectly fine with anti-Sharia regulations in the US (provided that they don't restrict the individual from doing whatever he/she wants, protect individuals from coercion by religious entities in general, and are aimed at theocracy in general).

    Let's not make the dumb lefty mistake of opposing Christian attempts at theocracy because the religion is familiar, while supporting more exotic forms of theocracy and oppression as some sort of liberty.

  • John||

    Let's not make the dumb lefty mistake of opposing Christian attempts at theocracy because the religion is familiar, while supporting more exotic forms of theocracy and oppression as some sort of liberty.

    HAHAAHA You do know this is Reason? Of course they will do that. Anything to look cool and tolerant and all progressive.

  • ||

    HAHAAHA You do know this is Reason? Of course they will do that. Anything to look cool and tolerant and all progressive.

    Yeah that is why they did that whole "Draw Mohammad Contest" to "look cool and tolerant and all progressive."

  • Proprietist||

    ???

    That's a pretty baffling statement. I'll be the first to admit to being something of a left-libertarian at heart, but who here supports "exotic forms of theocracy and oppression"?

    From what I recall most here are non-religious and just about all virulently anti-theocracy. Left-wingers would be on the front lines opposing the imposition of Sharia law if the actual threat was anything more than hyperbole from nationalist conservatives. Muslims make up only 0.8% of the nation's population.

    Ironically, many of these same nationalist conservatives want to impose Bible-based laws. This is actually a real potential threat considering Christians make up 78.4% of the population.

  • John||

    Let's not make the dumb lefty mistake of opposing Christian attempts at theocracy because the religion is familiar, while supporting more exotic forms of theocracy and oppression as some sort of liberty.

    HAHAAHA You do know this is Reason? Of course they will do that. Anything to look cool and tolerant and all progressive.

  • ||

    [citation needed]

    You've become just as tiresome with this bullshit as the paultard subscription cancelers.

  • Mo' $parky||

    Wha..What??? John tiresome with religious Team Red bullshit? Say it ain't so.

  • ||

    At least we can give him some credit.

    He is no where near as bad as David Yerushalmi.

    It is good to see how far John can fall vs where he actually is.

  • John||

    Better that than be one of the retarded Rothbardites on here.

  • John||

    Better that than be one of the retarded Rothbardites on here.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    John, You are a history buff yes? What do you think of Rothbard's historical stuff (Conceived in Liberty, Economic Thought before Adam Smith, etc.)?

  • John||

    I think he is a nut Ex Nihilo. To say the country ran off the rails because of Hamilton is just kooky.

  • ||

    I wasn't making a comment on Team Red religious bullshit just his constant erection of Reason strawmen just like the paultard Rothbardites that I compared him to.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I can't count how many times Reason has published articles that support theocracy. And you know they don't really believe it, it's just that all the cool people support theocracy.

    Yeah, that sounds real stoopid doesn't it.

    Christ John, you're turning into tulpa in your old age. Get a fucking grip man.

  • John||

    They will support theocracy. They just won't do anything to stop it. And by that I mean the staff not the commentators. The Reason position is mostly that Islam has never been and will never be a threat to anyone. And that is a bit naive.

  • Mo' $parky||

    March on you good Christian soldier.

  • John||

    John|6.20.12 @ 3:11PM|#

    Pretty much. The problem is that all of the arguments conservatives are making today against Sharia are going to come in very handy tomorrow when liberals go after Catholicism or Mormonism.

    The anti-Sharia laws are dumb. Just enforce the Constitution.

    Just ignore reality when it doesn't fit your prejudices Mo. It gets in the way of the stupid you are practicing.

  • Mo' $parky||

    So Islam is a threat because liberals are going to go after Christianity and Mormonism? I'm not seeing the tie-in here. Or are you just saying that everyone with a favorite religion hates people who have a different favorite religion?

  • John||

    No. The fact that I don't support these laws and think people should be free to contract however they want puts lie to your ridiculous accusation that I am some sort of Christian fundamentalist.

  • Mo' $parky||

    Islam has never been and will never be a threat to anyone. And that is a bit naive.

    your ridiculous accusation that I am some sort of Christian fundamentalist.

    I never said you were a fundy John, I don't think you'd fit in at the Westboro Baptist Church. That being said, you have a pretty big cross on your shoulder against Islam.

  • John||

    To understand that Islam can be a threat to people? I have the bodies of a few million Christians and Jews that used to live all over the middle east but don't anymore who would seem to agree with me.

    Isn't the Reason standard line that all religion is evil and the cause of all suffering on earth? If so it would seem that Islam being a religion would be pretty threatening.

  • Mo' $parky||

    To understand that Islam can be a threat to people?

    Is it as much of a threat to people as Christianity? Buddhism? Taoism?

    A particular religion is not a threat to anybody. Followers of a particular religion may be a threat to followers of some other religion. Especially when they get their panties in a bunch about people believing something other than their chosen belief.

    I realize you are just doing your Christian duty to point out the horrors done in the name of Islam while completely leaving out any mention of the horrors that were done in the name of Christianity.

  • John||

    I realize you are just doing your Christian duty to point out the horrors done in the name of Islam while completely leaving out any mention of the horrors that were done in the name of Christianity.

    I have noted any number of times the horrors committed in the name of Christianity. Indeed below I list two examples of pretty crazy Christian theocracies in history.Just because you are stupid Mo doesn't mean everyone else is.

  • Mo||

    I'm Mo, he's Mo' $parky. If that's too long at least include the apostrophe.

  • Mo' $parky||

    Just because you are stupid Mo doesn't mean everyone else is.

    Oh John, there you go again. Of all the people who regularly comment here I think you are probably the stupidest. Add to that the irrationality and pure evilness you certainly come out as quite a piece of work.

    Christianity and Islam, as religions, are not harmful or threatening to anyone. There are crazy followers of both that are willing to do anything in the name of their religion. Does that mean all religions should be completely abolished? I'd be down with that, although I know people would just find something else to start fights over. If you're going to hold up the crazies in the Middle East as the example of Islam then allow me to hold up the Westboro nutjobs as the example of Christianity.

  • John||

    If you're going to hold up the crazies in the Middle East as the example of Islam then allow me to hold up the Westboro nutjobs as the example of Christianity.

    Feel free. And when the Westboro people take over an entire country come back and talk to me.

    In the meantime lighten up Francis.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do the Westboro baptist guys routinely kill their daughters for getting raped?

    Did the Westboro baptist guys murder that piss Christ "artiste"?

  • Mo||

    Miss the abortion clinic bombings in the late 90s? What about the evangelicals that helped Uganda draft the death penalty for homosexuality law?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Is it as much of a threat to people as Christianity?

    I don't know,

    How about you openly publish a cartoon that mocks both Jesus and Mohammed and let us know where the death threats come from.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What's that called when you construct an argument for an opponent that is easily refuted, and then refute it?

    I can never remember what that's called.

  • ||

    I have a suspicion as to why you cant count them......

  • Mo||

    Anti-sharia laws prevent people from privately contracting their personal business. If two people want to sign a contract that their marriage is governed by Islamic law, who the fuck cares as long as it doesn't violate existing laws. Since the bad stuff these laws are intended to stop are already illegal under Federal law, all this does is limit people's religious freedom and freedom of contract.

  • John||

    Pretty much. The problem is that all of the arguments conservatives are making today against Sharia are going to come in very handy tomorrow when liberals go after Catholicism or Mormonism.

    The anti-Sharia laws are dumb. Just enforce the Constitution.

  • Fluffy||

    BTW while this guy (whom I have never heard of) does sound fucking insane, I'm perfectly fine with anti-Sharia regulations in the US (provided that they don't restrict the individual from doing whatever he/she wants)

    Every last one of the "anti-sharia" regulations is aimed at preventing private individuals from employing sharia-based private arbitration.

    This means that your statement is kind of dumb. The entire reason the anti-sharia folks are bent out of shape is because they believe that if people voluntarily sign contracts that include sharia arbitration, that means "oh noes we are all dhimmis!"

  • BarryD||

    Family Law is different stuff from contracts between a real estate developer and a landscape contractor.

    The sharia stuff is being debated in other parts of the world, right now. The debate is interesting.

    I think your statement is an oversimplification (i.e. kind of dumb).

    I don't think there's a reason to write off everyone with an opinion about this issue as a bigot, right up front. That sounds like a dumb Progressive tactic, and nothing more.

    Like I said, this guy sounds insane. That doesn't have much bearing on anything else.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't think there's a reason to write off everyone with an opinion about this issue as a bigot, right up front.

    Who did that?

    You wrote that you:

    1. Supported anti-sharia regulations

    2. Opposed stopping individuals from doing what they want

    Sorry, there's no way to do #1 without doing #2.

    Give me an example of an anti-sharia regulation you would support that wouldn't constitute stopping individuals from doing what they want. Go ahead.

    Your statement a mealy-mouthed "Man in the Street who wants it both ways" statement that is designed to make you sound reasonable, but actually makes you sound foolish because the "Doctrine of the Mean" position you think you're staking out can't actually exist.

  • John||

    I will give you an example fluffy. Two people get married in a country that follows Sharia law. Then they move the US. After being here the wife decides that she no longer wants to be Muslim and decides to take the kids and marry a Christian. They sue for divorce. Husband argues under Sharia law her conversion prevents her from having custody of the kids.

    Who wins in your view? Should we recognize the Sharia contract that the wife signed and give him the kids or should be go by state law that says the kids should go where the judges deems is in their best interests?

  • Fluffy||

    You're already unable to sign a prenuptial agreement that attempts to declare in advance who gets custody of the kids. In every state of the union. Sharia contract, non-Sharia contract, it doesn't matter.

    An anti-sharia regulation would be one that said, "Well, you can sign a contract saying the husband gets the kids and the wife gets a cash payment, but you can't sign one saying that a Sharia arbitrator gets to decide who gets custody".

  • John||

    You're already unable to sign a prenuptial agreement that attempts to declare in advance who gets custody of the kids. In every state of the union. Sharia contract, non-Sharia contract, it doesn't matter.

    No you are not. If the other party renounces that contract it will be up to the court to decide. Just because you signed something when you go married won't be enforced. It will be what the court determines is in the best interest of the children.

    Try again.

  • Fluffy||

    You're already unable to sign a prenuptial agreement that attempts to declare in advance who gets custody of the kids. In every state of the union. Sharia contract, non-Sharia contract, it doesn't matter.

    No you are not. If the other party renounces that contract it will be up to the court to decide. Just because you signed something when you go married won't be enforced. It will be what the court determines is in the best interest of the children.

    Try again.

    We just said the same thing, dumbass.

    Fluffy: Prenuptial contracts that try to dictate custody are unenforceable.

    John: NO WAY ROAR YOU'RE WRONG! Actually, prenuptial contracts that try to dictate custody are unenforceable!!!

    What is this, Abbott and Costello?

  • John||

    We just said the same thing, dumbass.

    No dumb ass we didn't. In an enforceable prenup, one side can't walk out of it. The court will enforce it whether both sides like it or not. That is the whole issue. Should the Sharia law be enforceable against he wife even if she renounces it later? That is the whole reason why we have courts.

    So one more time, tell me why it should or should not.

  • Mo||

    If she signed a contract and wasn't under duress during that, the contract takes precedence. Same as if she signed a prenup that conflicts with state law, the prenup takes precedence.

  • John||

    Wrong. See above.

  • ||

    the establishment of a world state

    and this includes libertarianism

    We want a world State?

    Did I miss a meeting or something?

  • BarryD||

    The NEW Vast Libertarian Conspiracy: We want to take over the WORLD! ...and leave you alone.

  • Mo' $parky||

    I'll bet you're wishing you were an anarchist right about now.

  • General Butt Naked||

    A world state based on the principles of libertarianism. Hell yes.

    Though we should keep a couple socialist utopias around to give the statists a place to go and to serve as a reminder of the hell that is big government.

  • ||

    A world state based on the principles of libertarianism.

    That's an oxymoron. How are you going to get a world state without using force? Or keep it based on libertarianism without any competition?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think our plan is to make most of the world into slaves, while we libertarians reap the benefit of that slavery. So the top would be free, but the bottom would be oppressed.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Are you saying that a libertarian state cannot exist in isolation?

  • SugarFree||

    No, he's saying that not everyone would want to be a libertarian or live in a libertarian state and it would take force to make them. Of course, using force to keep them from being able to use force to keep us from being libertarians is not a violation of NAP and all that would be required.

  • Fluffy||

    We want a world State?

    I think he's saying we don't believe in the capital-N Nation.

    And we don't.

  • ||

    I think he's saying we don't believe in the capital-N Nation.

    That takes a lot of mental gymnastics to get from that to libertarians want a world government.

    Something to do with "We must have a capital-N Nation or the world will form a government therefor if you don't support the Nation then you support the world government"

    Not disagreeing with you...SANE probably does think like this.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.

    You know who else put people in prison based on religion??

  • Mo' $parky||

    Tokugawa Ieyasu?

  • ||

    Did Japan even have prisons at that time?

    My entire understanding of the period comes from that Shogun book....but from that I get the feeling they would just chopped of your head rather then put you in prison.

  • SugarFree||

    Arguing over which religious diktat you'd rather live under is like arguing which flavor of shit would make the best ice cream. I'm sure there's some difference to be found, but I still don't want to eat whipped, frozen shit in the first place.

  • Killazontherun||

    Meanwhile, may I leave you with some pamphlets explaining why my Big Guy is the right choice for you?

  • SugarFree||

    Sure, I always need paper to light my charcoal grill.

  • Killazontherun||

    Thanks. I got a quota to make. He's a real dick.

  • Monkey's Uncle||

    Exactly. ^these^ and BarryD's Chris Hitchens tie in above. +1

  • ||

    "Have you tried Hare Krishna?"

  • Pro Libertate||

    I found out what happened to them, by the way. They got cleared out of airports--along with everyone else--after 9/11.

  • Killazontherun||

    Great movie to be a ten year old at the time to see.

    What's up with the Hare Krisna's? You read the Bhagavad Gita, and Krisna is a real badass. They don't sell that image at all. They sell the opposite. A ten foot tall flower child!

  • Killazontherun||

    My punctuation is about as random as a certain Troll's word spittle.

  • ||

    "Good grief, it's a running gag."

  • Killazontherun||

    You talked me into it. My week to pick the movie. That's going to be the one.

    Update: Sorry no politicians died when I rewatched Young Frankenstein about a month ago. I was hoping, after previous success with Nixon. They say there is no such thing as a coincidence. Well, there is people, there is.

  • Wilt Chamberlain||

    Yeah, religions try way to hard to have a peaceful image now. Revelation has a freakin dragon. A DRAGON WITH SEVEN HEADS, TEN HORNS AND SEVEN CROWNS. Why isn't that in the pamphlets? Greek and Norse myths are forgotten, and we're left with lotus flowers and carpenters as gods.

  • Killazontherun||

    Damn. That's got to be worth some serious experience points. The loot alone must be unbelievable.

  • Wilt Chamberlain||

    Yeah, I'd imagine you could fashion an entire set of dragon armor out of it.

  • KDN||

    Pass, bro. Crown of the Apocalypse looks epic, but that is just way too much spirit.

  • Brett L||

    A fair number of religions had smiths as gods, at least in the west, so I think tradesmen gods are fine.

  • T||

    Pear pimples for hairy fishnuts?

  • Killazontherun||

    Death to the fascist!

  • ||

    Arguing over which religious diktat you'd rather live under is like arguing which flavor of shit would make the best ice cream.

    I can't really agree. Hard to find many non-christian liberal democracies around.

    I guess you could pull that whole "Jefferson was a DEIST!!!!" crap, but really even with him and a few other founders it is hard to argue that the US is not a christian state, and that secularism is not an outcrop of christian history and thought.

  • John||

    Probably the worst "Christian theocracy" would be the Puritans or Elizabethan England, which was flatout totalitarian. They still burned people at the stake for adultery. And in England they were terrified of there being religious wars like Germany. Considering that most of the country was still secretly Catholic as late as the 1600s, that wasn't an unfounded fear.

    That said, I would take either of those two places over secular paradises like Revolutionary France or Soviet Russia.

  • ||

    Don't forget Cromwell!

  • John||

    Cromwell was a bad guy but mostly to the Welsh and the Irish and his political enemies.

  • Killazontherun||

  • Brett L||

    Speaking of the Irish, masters of the beautiful gesture in the face of utter defeat.

  • Fluffy||

    Japan?

  • T||

    It's out there in the middle of the ocean, Fluffy. Hard to find.

  • affenkopf||

    Taiwan, South Korea (okay they have a lot of Christians, but these are no majority)

  • John||

    And who built the Japanese Democracy? The other would be South Korea, although there are a lot of Christians there as well.

    The best example would be India. But what do India and Japan have in common? They were both ruled by Christian democracies prior to getting their own.

    Hard to think of a non Christian democracy that grew up organically without being enforced by a Western Power. Turkey maybe.

  • Fluffy||

    Japan had a parliament before the 1930's.

    It just got hijacked by militarists.

    Japan in, say, 1922, was definitely comparable to 1913 Germany, which was a constitutional monarchy that included a parliament. And it got there without anyone conquering them and making them do it.

  • John||

    No we just send gun boats over and forced them to open up to the world. And they still had an emperor who was considered God on earth. Honestly I am not that familiar with Meji Japan. So that may be one example. And the other is post Ottoman Turkey. But that is only two examples in all of history. Pretty thin gruel.

  • Mo||

    Seeing as pretty much every country in the world was at one point in time ruled by a Christian nation, can we blame all of the crappy governments on Christianity too or just the ones that fit your desired narrative?

  • John||

    can we blame all of the crappy governments on Christianity too

    Yes, it is called anti-colonialism. And the Western powers deserve a lot of the blame for the crappy governments that arose in post colonial areas.

    The fact remains that there are very few nonwestern organic democracies. One and a half maybe because I think you could call Turkey at least half western. That would be pretty good evidence that non Christian non western countries don't have a lot of use for democracy.

  • SugarFree||

    I don't have a lot of use for democracy.

  • Fluffy||

    There are really only three or four organic Christian democracies, too.

    Every Central and Eastern European state that was created from the wreckage of empires after 1918 had their republic imposed from the outside. Germany and Italy developed organic parliaments, but those states themselves were created by conquest (Prussian and Piedmontese) so a substantial portion of their populations came to the modern state "under the gun". That leaves us with England, France, and Russia. And maybe Spain and Portugal, although I would say that making it to modernity in 1975 is nothing to brag about.

    Former colonies of England and France are problematic. If India isn't an organic democracy I don't see how Canada can be one.

  • John||

    If India isn't an organic democracy I don't see how Canada can be one.

    If Canada were still almost entirely populated by the native population, you would be right. But it is not. It is almost all English and French immigrants. India in contrast is all made up of the people who lived there when the British showed up. For that reason Canada, Australia and the US count as organic democracies but a place like India or the Philippines doesn't.

  • Mo||

    That seems exactly backwards Canada, Australia and the US were just Brits that brought their local form of government with them (or rather were ruled by the British form of government and then modified around the edges to their circumstances).

  • John||

    That is my point. Those countries are western. And thus the democracy they brought with them wasn't enforced by somewhere else.

  • ||

    Japan's liberal democracy was installed by the US.

    It has held up pretty good I will admit.

  • R C Dean||

    Hard to find many non-christian liberal democracies around.

    I would count most of Europe, these days. If post-Christian counts as non-Christian, at least.

  • John||

    But they seem to get less Democratic as they get less Christian.

  • SugarFree||

    Christian-majority nations are not the same thing as theocracies. And anyone that wishes they were are kindly offered the opportunity to go jump in a lake.

  • John||

    True. And majority Christian nations are almost never theocracy. Majority Muslim nations on the other hand.

  • SugarFree||

    Which says nothing at all to my point that all theocracies are undesirable.

    There is no state on the entire planet dedicated to negative rights and maximal liberty. That we live in one slightly less shitty than the rest is not a USA! USA! USA! moment and certainly not a triumph for Christianity.

  • John||

    Which says nothing at all to my point that all theocracies are undesirable.

    But it says a lot about Islam.

  • SugarFree||

    So? They can believe and do to each other whatever they fucking want. They shit the bed, let them wallow in it.

    The day Sharia becomes law in this country, feel free to ride a unicorn over to my house and punch me square in the jaw.

  • John||

    Maybe we ought to make it clear to the Muslims that come here that Sharia law is off of the table? Because some of them seem to have not gotten that message.

  • SugarFree||

    Maybe we ought to make it clear to the Muslims that come here that Sharia law is off of the table?

    As long as we make it clear Christian Law is off the table too. There are quite a few people (in a not quite perfectly over-lapping demographic, but damn near) who think it shouldn't be.

  • John||

    What Christian Law do you want to get rid of?

  • ||

    What Christian Law do you want to get rid of?

    Thou shall not kill.

    I got a couple of grudges I want to settle.

    Plus I want people to swear on broadcast TV more. That whole taking the lord's name in vane thing is killing network sitcoms.

  • ||

    But it says a lot about Islam.

    This scratches my point.

    Is it hypothetically possible for one religion to be better for libertarian's (or atheists for that matter) then another?

    I think it is. I also think it happened in the real world.

    Anyway I don't want to pick on Islam in particular. That is John's thing.

  • Trespassers W||

    And majority Christian nations are almost never theocracy.

    Well, not any more.

  • ||

    I would argue that from say 700AD to 1500AD or so they were not really Christian nations. Sure they were ruled by a Christian theology but the actual people were just ignorant and superstitious. The Church actively held back from everyone else what was in the bible.

    If I walked into a typical village in Europe and told them Jesus was a Jewish carpenter I would probably be burned at the stake....and they would do it even if they didn't know what a Jew was.

    After that period When literacy rose and a broad worship of what is actually in the bible began (printing press) to be understood the Protestant theocracies that emerged did not last all that long....and were replaced by the enlightenment.

  • Mo||

    You could say the same thing about modern Islamic theocracies as well.

  • affenkopf||

  • jacob||

    Heh. This quote tells it all

    "The Macadams Report. Read by more people in Louisville than any other city"

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights."

    Fire away, jackoff. But you have to wait your turn; the Republicans and Democrats had us in their sights first. Line forms to the rear.

  • ||

    Hard to find many non-christian liberal democracies around.


    India gets close but the fact that there are so many Muslim and Hindu extremist kind of supports your argument.

    But I still have to give them credit for how well they do at keeping all their different religious and ethnic groups from each others' throats.

  • Don Mynack||

    Just when you thought Ta-Nehisi Coates actually started to make some sense with this article, he goes and writes this: "over the course of the Obama presidency I have become convinced that no single force exerts a greater pull on his presidency than white racism. Not white resentment. Not white populism. White racism. I don't know how else to explain a health care denounced as reparations, the rather continuous disrespect, the sense that he is a Kenyan illegitimate or all of the attendant theories. I do not know how else to explain a state like West Virginia, arguably the most racist in the country, where delegates are now refusing to endorse the president."

    That's right, the single greatest force opposing Obama is RAYCESTS.

  • BarryD||

    Mississippi is probably the most racist state. West Virginians can't afford racism.

    I haven't heard "health care denounced as reparations", nor the health care bill either, (though maybe I wasn't listening closely enough).

  • oncogenesis||

    What's "a health care"?

  • GILMORE||

    Fuck "Bigot", the dude is straight up batshit nutz. The name of his organization should be an obvious hint.

    "what organization are you in?"
    "I'm in SANE"
    "So, you take meds?"

  • SugarFree||

    We decided?!
    My best interest?!
    How can you say what my best interest is!
    And what are ya trying ta say, I'm crazy?!
    How do you know what my best interest is!
    When I went to your schools!
    I went to your churches!
    I went to your institutional learning facilities!
    So how can ya say I'm crazy?!

  • 16th amendment||

    The SANE website http://www.saneworks.us/indexnew.php says:

    Fourth, you claim I have authored a bill to outlaw Islam and being Muslim. Another patent falsehood. The bill I drafted outlawed explicitly a Sharia advocacy that promoted likely and imminent violence. Indeed, I have represented Muslims pro bono to get them asylum and entry visas into this country to protect them from this Sharia doctrine and system, and this is made clear at SANE's website, had you chosen to actually report facts and not just engage in a bigoted ad hominem attack.

  • SIV||

    As Conor Friedersdorf tweeted: "what National Review will apologize for in a decade or two."

    If the Reason-editors love Conor so much why don't they gay marry him?

    I'm still waiting for National Review to apologize for ousting the John Birch Society. They seem to be moving more and more in the wrong direction.

  • John||

    If the Reason-editors love Conor so much why don't they gay marry him?

    It is the douche bag political reporter club. You gotta protect the club.

  • Brian from Texas||

    This Yerushalmi fellow is a pathetic crackpot. In addition to his anti-Muslim rantings he's also on record as calling secular and liberal Jews 'race-traitors' and believes blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement