Monday, 12/7/15

  1. In the name of diversity, I expel Thee!
  2. Waiting for Super-Imam
  3. Do something! Anything!


“Immediately upon hearing of the nature of the meeting,” said the managers of The Princess, “we called the organization to explain that our policy is one that celebrates diversity and that the hotel is not a venue for anti-diversity discussions.”

Let the obvious irony sink in.

(Anthony Esolen) Read the whole Esolen piece and allow to sink in the crazy house-of-mirrors oddity of the quintessential public accommodation, an Inn fer cryin’ out loud!, discriminating in this manner against perceived discriminators.

The conferees need a room to talk in, and that’s all. And the Princess is in the specific business of giving people rooms, without regard to what they say in those rooms.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I’m a lawyer. I look forward to The Princess getting sued.


I’ve written from time to time about the variety within Islam. I probably have observed (I know I’ve thought about it) that Christians and Muslims live in peace and substantial equality in some Balkan states, for instance, with neither lording it over or subjecting the other.

San Bernardino has me rethinking how much can legitimately be inferred from that. I’m informed by a fairly credible, although secondary, source that no strain of Islam repudiates violent Jihad as a matter of Islamic principle. They may have eschewed it as a matter of prudence, but that’s another matter.

Now a Muslim scholar admits (it’s doubtful that this is the first time, but I haven’t kept score) that traditional interpretations of Sharia approve violent aggressive jihad:

ISIS leaders and supporters can and do draw on a wealth of scriptural and historical sources to justify their actions.

Traditional interpretations of Sharia, or Islamic law, approved aggressive jihad to propagate Islam. They permitted the killing of captive enemy men. They allowed jihadis to enslave enemy women and children …

He’s hopeful for a persuasive counter-interpretation, but can we afford to wait?


On the other hand, what would it mean not to wait for a persuasive counter-interpretation? This?

Thuggish political operative Rahm Emanuel has famously counseled to “never let a crisis go to waste,” and on the progressive side legislation has become as much about catharsis as about actually solving problems.


But this, from one the holy sites that’s now obligatory for GOP candidate pilgrimage, is as stupid, and at least as bigoted (“those Muslims” strikes me as more dangerous than “bitter clingers”), as the polar opposite liberal reaction:

We. Are. Doomed.

* * * * *

“In learning as in traveling and, of course, in lovemaking, all the charm lies in not coming too quickly to the point, but in meandering around for a while.” (Eva Brann)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.


About readerjohn

I am a retired lawyer and an Orthodox Christian, living in a collapsing civilization, the modern West. There are things I'll miss when it's gone. There are others I won't. That it is collapsing is partly due to calculated subversion, summarized by the moniker "deathworks." This blog is now dedicated to exposing and warring against those deathwork - without ceasing to spread a little light.
This entry was posted in Discrimination, Evangelicalism, Islam, Legalia, Sundry flakes. Bookmark the permalink.