I watched the clip. In his movie "Religiousless" Maher focuses on Christianity. I didn't watch it, but I do know that he openly admitted in that film that he very much wanted to do a similar on location portion on Islam, but feared he would not only be denied access to any 1 of the 46 (if I remember the number correctly) "Arab States", but that he'd likely be beheaded were he to even attempt such a thing. He's touched what's going to be a raw nerve for Liberals - for there should be no greater critic of Islam, as practiced by a majority of its 1.2 billion members, then women's rights groups, gay advocates, and professional civil rights "champions". Yet, they remain silent. This may be the first legitimately politically incorrect thing Bill's said in 10 years.
Now, I posted a lengthy diatribe on this very subject about 2 years ago, found here: AWESOME. I had just concluded "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It", by Mark Steyn. It is a fantastic resource for this topic - it's basically a 224 page discussion, argument, and defense of Maher's sentiments. I urge anyone interested in the subject to pick up a copy, you can get a used paperback copy on Amazon for less then $10.
But beware, it's chilling. And as the author pointed out (and in a defense of Maher), " One can argue about what this transformation means, or even about the rate of transformation, but to deny there's anything going on involves a profound suspension of disbelief."
A few examples ...
Would any one venture to guess what the most popular new -born boys' name in Belgium is? It's Mohammad. Sweden? Mohammad. Amsterdam? Mohammad. In 2005 Mohammad was only the 5th most popular boys' name within the UK. Now it's #1 ... and "with a bullet", as Casey Kasem used to say.
The UK and Europe in general ... at current the percentage of the indigenous population 15 years old and under in Spain is 14%. The UK, 18%. The US, 21%. Saudi Arabia, 39%. Pakistan, 40% . Yemen, 47%. Notice anything there? Would anyone hazard to guess what the "fertility stability" rate for human civilization is set at by demographers? That means just maintaining say, 10 million people from 1950 to 2000 with no spike and no decline. It's 2.1%. Every woman must reproduce at least 2.1 babies in her lifetime to maintain the population, wherever it is at. In Europe, currently as a whole their live birth rate per woman is 1.38. Japan, 1.32. Russia, 1.14. Canada is at an all time low at 1.48. Spain's is a staggering 1.1. The Spaniards are on a course to literally halve themselves every generation. 1 child for every two adults. Ireland is better, 1.8% - thank the Church's stance against birth control and the Irishman's complete inability to utilize a calender for anything other then crop cycles. Germany and Austria are at 1.3. Italy, 1.2. America's is 2.1%. We are the fastest reproducers of the Western, democratized first world. And just a quick aside, we're doing that with 3rd world illegals via Mehico way. At any rate, these Western nations are demanding an ever greater, ever expanding lavish social welfare net. And If you're halving each other every 30 years as the Spaniards are doing, just who is going to pick up the tab as there become 8 times as many retired grandparents as there are employed grandchildren? Immigrants, form North Africa and the Middle east ... that's who. Like worker bees the West is inviting them in with open arms, even in a post 9/11 world, so as to keep those dollars pouring in to state coffers. They are outsourcing the most basic job of all - reproducing. But what the imported worker brings to the host country does matter. Does the immigrant change slightly to form the melting pot or does he or she reverse assimilate the host? "Who" the West imports for workers as they decide children are an inconvenience matters to those of us raising children. As Steyn quipped, "Just because your high school has 200 students and the other has 2000, doesn't guarantee that they'll beat you in basketball. But it at least gives them an advantage."
Why worry now about something 50 to 100 years in the offing? If a code of conduct, and just for fun lets call it a religion, of even 10% of your population is at odds with the very concept of individual liberty, then you have a real societal problem on your hands. Especially if that 10% are the only ones having babies. Consider this: in the 2005 rankings of Freedom House's survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, 5 of the 8 countries with the lowest "freedom" score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only 3 were rated as "free." Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50% of the population, only another 3 were named as free - Benin, Serbia/Montenegro, and Suriname. Which begs the question - are Islam and democracy compatible?
And what has become of those progressive pluralistic societies that have taken on more and more "workers" to sustain their socialist Utopia? The Middle East and North Africa are now the principle suppliers in new immigrants to Europe and Canada. Has the culture we would recognize as "free" been affected? Perhaps we should ask the first defendant in the newly established "Muslim Court" of England.
Calls to prayer are broadcasted daily on public speakers in Canada. The same Canada that would scream in outrage were the Pope to offer Easter Mass within 100 yards of a publicly owned piece of land. I'm sure they'll be content to broadcast only in "their neighborhoods" over the next 30 years. They wont spread out.
In the fall of 2001 the Ottawa Citizen conducted a coast-to-coast survey of Canadian Imams and found all but 2 insistent that there was no Muslim involvement in the September 11th attack. 5 years later in the summer of 2006, a poll in the United Kingdom found that only 17% of British Muslims believed there was ANY involvement of Arabs in 9/11. With a sizable percentage making comments such as, "it was done by Mossad." And I'm sure you gay people will have nothing to worry about were you to find yourself in a Muslim Court or Muslim dominated England. The rise of gay-bashing (actual physical assaults) in the city of Amsterdam - the most "tolerant" city on earth - has increased so sharply that Dutch officials actually commissioned a study by the University of Amsterdam to determine what was going on. The result read as follows:
"Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity."
Well that ought to calm things down - tell a bunch of young devout Muslim men that they're closet homosexuals. It's not like if say 19 of them got together they could do any real damage. In February, 2008 on the BBC the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was, "dangerous to have one law for everyone." And that the introduction of Sharia Law was inevitable. Isn't that the founding principle of the democratic rule of law? The same law applies to all, equally? That was antiquated as of 2008? Within days of that comment the British and Ontario governments both confirmed that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions were to receive welfare payments for each of their wives. What does this mean for the future, outside of what will be a sudden influx of fringe Mormons into the great white North? I shudder to guess.
The deeply traditionally Christian town of Oxford, Britain has joined their Canadian brethren in "multicultural tolerance" via the loud speaker. 3 times a day the Central Mosque broadcasts the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers that can be heard throughout the city. Tolerance? Broadcasting the supremacy of Allah over the tops of centuries old Anglican Churches is tolerance? How about something more basic - disease? There's a not-so PC problem with British Muslim nurses in public hospitals riddled with Clostridium Difficle and refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing their hands requires them to bare their arms.
The Muslim populations in Europe, if they remain at today's pace, are set to double every ten years. As we learned in Iraq & Afghanistan, despite all of our weaponry and technology - numbers matter. Boots on the ground make a difference, and Northern Africa and the Middle East are putting boots on the ground all throughout Europe.
"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
-Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History.
One last thing. In 2007 the Mayor of the city of Brussels - the capital of the EU - was Socialist Party member Freddy Thielemans, who presided over the ruling Socialist Party Caucuas of the city with 17 other members. Here are their names:
1. Fatima Abid
2. Mustafa Amrani
3. Samira Attalbi
4. Mohammed Boukantar
5. Philippe Close
6. Jean Baptise de Cree
7. Ahmed el Ktibi
8. Julie Fiszman
9. Faouzia Hariche
10. Karine Lalieux
11.Marie-Paule Mathias
12. Yvan Mayeur
13. Mounia Mejbar
14. Mohamed Ouria Ghili
15. Mahfoudh Romdhani
16. Sevet Temiz
17. Christian Van Der Linden
Nice huh?
And a last one, Titus will particularly like this statistic: According to the Toronto Star (a flaming Left Wing, yet considered "mainstream," Canadian newspaper) revealed that at current rates, the Army of the Russian Federation will be majority Muslim by 2015. Besides putting quite the wrinkle in the Chechen War, by how many factors does their "America-spoiler" role increase by then?
And all of this begs a question that I broached with Jambo not long ago and would absolutely relish asking Bill Maher. As of now, as we sit here in 2010, is Islam a "less evolved" religion then Christianity? Can he (or any one) name one majority Christian nation that is not "free?" Can he name any Muslim nations, without US troops on the ground, that are? What is certain is that Islam has not undergone a reformation to oblige itself to a government we would recognize as the inherent state, and right, of man. It would undoubtedly pain Mr. Maher to say anything flattering about Christianity, but given his recent comments I believe he'd bare that pain and answer "yes."
How would you answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment