{"id":4572,"date":"2018-04-26T13:15:04","date_gmt":"2018-04-26T13:15:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/04\/26\/on-opposing-a-dangerous-ideology-that-is-also-a-religion\/"},"modified":"2018-04-26T13:15:04","modified_gmt":"2018-04-26T13:15:04","slug":"on-opposing-a-dangerous-ideology-that-is-also-a-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/04\/26\/on-opposing-a-dangerous-ideology-that-is-also-a-religion\/","title":{"rendered":"On Opposing a Dangerous Ideology that is also a Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article<\/a> by William Kilpatrick bears on my ongoing conversation with a Canadian philosopher about Islam, religious tests, and constitutional interpretation. Last exchange here<\/a>.  I'll pull a few quotations from Professor Kilpatrick and add some comments.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The idea of opposing dangerous ideologies is not foreign to Americans, but the idea of opposing an ideology that is also a religion is more problematic. It has become increasingly problematic now that we live in an era in which merely disagreeing with another\u2019s opinions is tantamount to a hate crime.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But obviously, to dissent from a proposition is not to hate a person.  Nor is dissent on the part of the dissenter a sign of mental malfunction. Liberals who would smear Kilpatrick by calling him an 'Islamophobe' are either ignorant or vicious. Ignorant, if they do not understand that a phobia is an irrational<\/em> fear. Vicious, if they mean to silence such a truth-teller by questioning his sanity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The U.S. Constitution in the first and second clauses of its First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. But does Islam fall under this protection? Ought there be freedom of religion for a religion that seeks to eliminate every other religion? Obviously not. The Constitition is not a suicide pact. I argue this out in painful detail in my last exchange<\/a> with the Canadian.<\/span><\/p>\n

I don't deny that Islam is a religion. It may even be a way to God for some who know of no better Way. (The allusion is to via, veritas, vita<\/em>.)But Islam is just as much, if not more, a political ideology that seeks to subvert the principles and values of the American founding. Let us note en passant<\/em> that this explains what would otherwise be very hard to explain, namely, why the Left is in cahoots with Islam. For the Left too is out to subvert said principles and values. Islamists must view leftists as useful idiots who will be sent packing to the realm of the black-eyed virgins should the former gain the (knife-wielding) upper hand. Leftists are in for a surprise if they think that they can use Islamists for leftist purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n

I feel a rant coming on, so back to the sober Irishman:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Under Pope Benedict XVI there were signs\u2014such as his Regensburg Address\u2014that the Church was developing a more realistic view of Islam. But whatever ground was gained by Benedict was given up by Francis. Indeed, it seems fair to say that under Francis, the Church\u2019s understanding of Islam regressed. Perhaps the most glaring example of this regression can be found in the Pope\u2019s assertion <\/a>that \u201cauthentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.\u201d It\u2019s hard to imagine any of his predecessors or any of their advisors making a similar claim.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Holy moly! Could Bergoglio the Boneheaded be that benighted?  Yes, take a gander at this:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

By contrast, Church leaders and Pope Francis in particular, have become, in effect, enablers of Islam. Pope Francis has denied that Islam sanctions violence, has drawn a moral equivalence between Islam and Catholicism (\u201cIf I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence<\/a>\u201d), and has campaigned for the admittance of millions of Muslim migrants into Europe. Moreover, he has criticized those who oppose his open borders policy as hard-hearted xenophobes. In return for his efforts, he has been publicly thanked by several Muslim leaders for his \u201cdefense of Islam<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

One might be tempted to use the word \u201ccollaborator\u201d instead of \u201cenabler.\u201d But collaborator is too strong a word. In its World War II context, it implies a knowing consent to and cooperation with an evil enterprise. It seems clear to me that the pope and others in the hierarchy are enabling the spread of an evil ideology; however, it\u2019s not at all clear that they understand what they\u2019re doing. Francis, for instance, seems to sincerely believe that all religions are roughly equal in goodness. Thus for him, the spread of any religion must seem like a good thing. It\u2019s an exceedingly na\u00efve view, but one that seems honestly held.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Related: Pope Benedict's Regensburg Speech and Muslim Oversensitivity<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article by William Kilpatrick bears on my ongoing conversation with a Canadian philosopher about Islam, religious tests, and constitutional interpretation. Last exchange here.  I'll pull a few quotations from Professor Kilpatrick and add some comments. The idea of opposing dangerous ideologies is not foreign to Americans, but the idea of opposing an ideology that … Continue reading “On Opposing a Dangerous Ideology that is also a Religion”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62,119,139,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-catholic-corner","category-islamism","category-religion","category-u-s-constitution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}