Verbosities

I've got my own problems with religious fundamentalism, but I think we can all agree on how to feel about this:

In May 2003 - two months after the beginning of the Iraq War - the main organ for the American Islamic advocacy, the Center for American Islamic Relations' journal, Action Items, published a "symposium" titled "The End of Democracy?" which bluntly questioned "whether we have reached or are reaching a point where conscientious Muslims can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime. A series of essays raised the prospect of a major confrontation between Islam and the "regime," at times seeming to predict a civil-war scenario or Islamic insurrection against the government, exploring possibilities "ranging from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution."

[snip]

"American Muslims are not accustomed to speaking of a regime. Regimes are what other nations have," asserted the symposium's unsigned introduction. "This symposium asks whether we may be deceiving ourselves and, if we are, what are the implications of that self-deception. By the word 'regime' we mean the actual, existing system of government. The question that is the title of this symposium is in no way hyperbolic. The subject before us is the end of democracy." It declared, "The government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed... What is happening now is the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." The editorial quoted Fareeq Jafar, a leading American Islamic cleric based in Phoenix, saying, "A Muslim should not support a government that suppresses the faith or one that sanctions the taking of an innocent human life." -- [CAIR and the Call to Arms -- Al-Talal News]

Pissed off yet? Good. This is radical stuff. The advocation of civil unrest due to the perceived moral illegitimacy of the government by a radical religious sect is a scary proposition.

What's your initial reaction to this? Unpatriotic? That we should immediately deport these people as a danger to our way of life?

Well, I lied. The article above isn't about Islamic fundamentalists, and there is no Al-Talal news. The words in bold are the ones I replaced, mainly to an Islamic equivalent. Do you feel differently about this issue now?

In November 1996 - the month Clinton crushed Bob Dole and won reelection - the main organ of the theoconservative movement, Richard Neuhaus's journal First Things, published a "symposium" titled "The End of Democracy?" which bluntly questioned "whether we have reached or are reaching a point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime. A series of essays raised the prospect of a major confrontation between the church and the "regime," at times seeming to predict a civil-war scenario or Christian insurrection against the government, exploring possibilities "ranging from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution."

[snip]

"Americans are not accustomed to speaking of a regime. Regimes are what other nations have," asserted the symposium's unsigned introduction. "This symposium asks whether we may be deceiving ourselves and, if we are, what are the implications of that self-deception. By the word 'regime' we mean the actual, existing system of government. The question that is the title of this symposium is in no way hyperbolic. The subject before us is the end of democracy." It declared, "The government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed... What is happening now is the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." The editorial quoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia saying, "A Christian should not support a government that suppresses the faith or one that sanctions the taking of an innocent human life." -- [Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill, pg 30]