In 1899 Winston Churchill wrote the following: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
I find this quote to be quite compelling. The most prescient aspect of it is this: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” If Churchill is paying attention at all in Heaven, he’s banging on the podium saying “See, I told you so!”
The other, more troubling element of this quote is this: “and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall,” If anything characterizes western civilization in 2025 it is an almost complete absence of “the strong arms of science.”
Emotion has replaced science, rational thought and common sense as the guiding principle in the Christian dominated, i.e. western world. No longer are chromosomes determinative of a person’s gender. A series of ever evolving fictional climate emergencies are used to force western nations into handicapping their economies and reducing prosperity. Nations that took centuries or a millennium to coalesce are being shredded in a few years or decades as they import millions of third world immigrants who share neither their cultural norms nor values.
Even in areas where science is literally part of the function of the organization, science is sidelined for empathy. Here in America we have doctors, pilots, air traffic control officers and myriad others who are regularly being hired because of the pigment of their skin or some other irrelevant demographic characteristic.
It’s clear that the world Christianity built is no longer the bulwark against the invasion of Islam it once was. Actually, it’s just the opposite. In 2001, the year of 9/11, there were 1.5 million Muslims in America. Today there are four million, an increase of 150%, eight times what the population at large grew. In Europe, over the same period the number of Muslims has gone from 15 million to more than 45 million, essentially tripling. This while Christianity declined from 78% to 63% of the population in the US and dropped by both a percentage of the population and absolute numbers in Europe.
What, if anything should the United States do about this? The first question to ask if it’s a problem. I’d suggest it is. There are countless resources that track the impact on nations as Islam becomes more entrenched, and those impacts are never good. Not to mention the terrorist attacks or the ongoing threats of such. Or the violent campus (and beyond) protests after the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023 to see that this is a problem. And finally, at the end of the day, there’s the fact that Islam seeks to obliterate western civilization.
One might point out that Islamist terrorist attacks only killed a few thousand Americans over decades, out of a nation of 350 million people. That’s true, but that’s only because we have avoided another 9/11 thanks to the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people working hard to keep such an occurrence at bay.
Should something be done? Yes. Can something be done? Yes. What? Look to history.
The first item of note is that for most of 20th century Communism was rightfully seen as evil and anti-American. And although the Communist Party was free to exist on free speech grounds, it was hindered in almost every way possible. From not allowing Communists to work for the government and trying to root them out everywhere to the FBI surveilling them, Communism was anathema to American values and almost everyone agreed with that. Islam is not Communism, but it has at its core the goal of eliminating all other religions, quashing free speech, relegating women to 2nd class status and replacing secular government with Sharia law. Those goals are equally as dangerous to the Republic as anything Communism ever dreamt of doing. The difference is, while the former was shunned or even denounced in the media, in academia and among most of the citizenry, the latter is celebrated by the media and the intelligentsia while being supported by NGOs and leftist government bodies across the country.
Of course we have a 1st Amendment that promises a freedom of religion… That’s true, we do, but it’s not an absolute. The latter half of the 19th century saw the United States government essentially wage a 50 year war against the Mormon Church over polygamy, a core tenant of the faith. From outlawing the practice via law and arresting violators while Utah was just a Territory to refusing to allow it to become a state until the practice was officially expunged, the United States did everything within its power to eradicate the practice. The Church finally relented and in 1890 banned the practice, thus clearing the way for Utah to be admitted as a state in 1896.
Polygamy – a practice that is explicitly part of Islam – is indeed problematic, but certainly far less dangerous to the nation than the threats that Islam writ large poses for America.
So, what can be done? The first thing to do is explicitly recognizing that Sharia – the moral and religious law of Islam – is wholly incompatible with the Republic of the United States. From there a few things follow:
- Explicitly outlaw Sharia law nationally and in every state.
- Monitor and close any mosque that hosts a speaker or features an imam who calls for Sharia law.
- Ban all funds to organizations in the US coming from nations that have Sharia law.
- Close any school that teaches or encourages Sharia law.
- Demand every mosque and Muslim affiliated organization affirm that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and they will not seek to undermine it, replace it with Sharia nor to engage in or support terrorism in any way.
- After designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, do the same for organizations in the United States and beyond who support it or any other terrorist organizations.
Just as Mormons integrated into the United States after accepting the reality that the law of the land is founded on the Constitution, Muslims could do the same if America is really where they want to live.
Far from a mere mental exercise, this is a clarion call for the survival of the Republic. In little over a month, arguably America’s most important city is poised to elect as mayor an Islamist who also happens to be a Communist. In previous times those who advocated for overthrowing America were called traitors and were dealt with accordingly. Doing so now will most certainly result in being called racists and Islamaphobes, but not doing so will be another step in bringing the Republic to an end. Which is a better long-term outcome?
Follow me on X at @ImperfectUSA
See author page
Pass this anti Sharia Laws and without the ACLU and UN Human Rights Freaks getting involved
Re-enact the LAW that forbids any muslim from holding office – they CANNOT swear allegiance to OUR CONSTITUTION! But, if we have that LAW in place to exclude those who cannot UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION then that would exclude DEMOcrats!
There has never been a religious test for office, and there should not be one now!
Religious liberty is not a suicide pact.
You don’t get to hide behind “freedom of religion” while pushing a legal system that abolishes freedom altogether.
You can pray all you want.
You cannot pray your way into overthrowing the Constitution.
If that offends you, you’re not defending faith, you’re defending takeover.
make no relevant sense……
If it “makes no sense,” then point to what specifically is wrong with it, because everything I said is fact:
Mamdani has explicitly promoted replacing American law with ideological rule.
He has publicly defended movements that reject the U.S. Constitution as illegitimate.
Religious freedom protects worship, not political projects that openly seek to dismantle liberty.
If you can’t refute that, you’re not engaging, you’re just pretending confusion because the truth is inconvenient.
Right Wing Bubble Resident, I’ll assume.
Ah yes, the classic “I can’t refute your points, so I’ll just say you live in a bubble” approach.
Translation: “Everything you said is accurate, but acknowledging it would cause emotional discomfort, so here’s a label instead.”
If pointing out direct quotes, public statements, and openly declared political goals makes me a “bubble resident,” then your bubble appears allergic to facts.
Bubbles are where people hide from reality.
I’m describing it.
You’re denying it.
Mamdani isn’t a commie any more than Donnie is a Nazi!
If Mamdani isn’t a commie, why does his entire platform read like a Marxist starter pack? And if calling that out is “like calling Trump a Nazi,” maybe the problem is your definition of reality, not mine.
I said that calling Mamdani a commie and Trump a Nazi are similar in that neither is accurate.
Socialists aren’t commies, and authoritarians aren’t Nazis.
Cute distinction, but Mamdani is literally advocating state control of housing, transit, food, policing, and personal economics—that’s communism in practice, whether you call it “socialist,” “democratic socialist,” or “people’s liberation smoothie.”
You can play word games all day.
The ideology speaks for itself.
The State already controls housing in NYC with rent control, and has since the 1960s. The city and state of NY already control all transit and the police. Mamdani wants to experiment with groceries —a good idea. The only ‘personal economics’ matter he has brought up is taxing the wealthy, I agree. None of that is Marxist. No commie here!
You’re basically saying: “It’s not communism, because our city already adopted communist frameworks decades ago.”
When the government controls price, production, distribution, and movement, it doesn’t matter whether you slap the label ‘communal fairness’ or ‘smoothie for the people’ on it.
It’s Marxist in structure, totalitarian in trajectory, and catastrophic in outcome, every single time in history.
You are poorly informed. What about King Donnie getting companies to submit to the US by holding equity shares? Intel?
Intel wasn’t nationalized. No factories were seized. No private ownership was abolished.
Trump told companies: “If you want American money and American markets, bring your manufacturing back to America.”
That’s called strength. It’s called leverage. It’s what a serious country does when it doesn’t want to be dependent on China.
Marxism is when the state takes over production because it believes private property shouldn’t exist.
Trump protected American industry. Your guy wants the state to run American industry.
You keep shouting “Marxism!” at Trump while simultaneously defending full-blown government control of housing, transportation, policing, food supply, and wealth.
That’s not logic. That’s projection with a Wi-Fi connection.
When you can’t tell the difference between national defense and government ownership, you’re not making an argument, you’re confirming you’ve never opened a history book.
I have never used the term “Marxism” to describe any actions of Trump’s or Mamdani’s because I understand the true meaning of Karl Marx’s writing and know neither qualifies.
Learning politics from Fox News gives a limited perspective.
Trump’s controlling and shared equity plans are socialist, not Marxist. Learn your political categories.
NO FAUX-KING WAY! Mamdani isn’t a commie any more than Donnie is a Nazi!
Mamdani for Mayor of NYC, then Governor!
Ok…so now you’ve downgraded your position from “they’re not Marxist” to “okay, fine, it’s socialism.”
That’s not a rebuttal. That’s a confession.
You think pointing out “it’s socialist, not Marxist” is some kind of checkmate?
Newsflash: every Marxist system starts as socialism.
Socialism is the on-ramp to state control. Marx literally wrote that socialism is the transitional stage toward full communism.
So thank you for confirming the point.
You support socialist state control. You cheer the candidate who campaigns on it. And you admit Trump using leverage to bring jobs back is “socialist”, meaning your real issue isn’t ideology.
It’s that you’re totally fine with socialism when the left uses it to seize power, and hysterical when the right uses it to protect American interests.
Mamdani wants government control of housing, food, transit, policing, and wealth redistribution.
That is textbook socialism, and every socialist state in history has either collapsed or evolved into authoritarianism.
So spare me the “I know the true definition” routine. If you understood Marx half as well as you claim, you’d also understand where socialism leads.
If your political hero is openly running on state economic control and you’re chanting “Mamdani for Mayor, then Governor,” guess what? You’re not fighting labels, you’re advertising the revolution.
No, but I am saying we are already relying on many socialistic programs.
So after all the shouting about “King Donnie,” you’ve now arrived at my exact point:
We are already using socialist frameworks.
Exactly.
You’re not arguing against socialism, you’re arguing we should double down on the decay we’ve already allowed to rot our major cities, bankrupt our institutions, and destroy cost of living.
The difference between us is simple:
You see existing socialist dysfunction and want more of it.
I see it as a warning siren telling us to reverse course before we hit the wall.
Socialism isn’t a theoretical danger, it’s the reason New York can’t house its own people, can’t police its streets, can’t balance a budget, and is bleeding population.
You don’t get to use “we already have socialism” as a justification. That’s not an argument. That’s an obituary.
Pointing to a sinking ship and saying “See? We’re already underwater!” is not a defense of the iceberg.
More worried about Xian law, the 10 suggestions posed in public schools are offensive and an attempt to instill Christian nationalism as a governing authority.
and polygamy should be legal
“So polygamy should be legal?” Sure, why stop there? Want to add child brides next? Maybe legalize beating wives while we’re at it, you know, just to be culturally inclusive, right?
Neither child brides nor wife beating has anything to do with polygamous relationships. Or any cultural sensitivity, some people just like group sex.
You keep trying to frame polygamy like it’s a swingers retreat. It’s not.
It’s a legal institution. With economic rules. Inheritance rules. Tax rules. Battle-age male surplus consequences.
Societies don’t fall apart because Chad and Brittany are feeling kinky.
They fall apart when the law starts rewarding dynastic harems.
Rules are just laws that men make. There is no existential threat to a family consisting of two men, three women, and a donkey.
And there it is, the ideology in one sentence:
“There is no existential threat” to legally recognizing a household of two men, three women, and a donkey.
You just proved the point.
This isn’t about “love” or “freedom.”
It’s about dissolving the very concept of human social order.
If you can’t tell the difference between a family and a barnyard…
you’re not arguing policy, you’re arguing civilizational collapse.
I do admit to wanting to end this false construct of the “Family” as the basic unit of society… may the traditional family fade away with supernatural mysteries.
And there it is.
You’re not “arguing for equality” or “freedom.”
You’re openly advocating for the abolition of the family, the literal foundation of every functioning civilization in human history.
Every empire, nation, tribe, and culture that has ever survived had one thing in common: the family as the stabilizing unit that raises children, transmits values, and preserves continuity.
When you say “may the traditional family fade away,” what you’re actually saying is:
“May human civilization fracture into atomized consumers with no loyalty, no heritage, no stability, no future.”
This isn’t liberation.
It’s scorched-earth ideology aimed at dismantling the last barrier between citizens and total state control.
When the family is gone, the state becomes the parent, the moral authority, the entire identity.
That’s not progress.
That’s the end of society, and you’re proudly cheering it on like it’s an intellectual achievement.
You’re not a visionary. You’re just saying the quiet part out loud: the goal is not tolerance, it’s replacement of civilization itself.
Time for something new… It’s happening, and YOU, Curt, know it.
When the aliens land, there goes the bubble…
…now I must leave to get ready for Saturday date, dinner, and a movie
Aliens are coming” is not a rebuttal, it’s your white flag wrapped in sarcasm.
You started this discussion pretending to argue policy.
Now you’ve downgraded your worldview to “society is ending anyway, lol aliens” as an excuse to cheer on cultural collapse while acting smug about it.
That’s not intellectual superiority, it’s nihilism with a punchline.
You’re not the enlightened futurist in this scenario. You’re just a guy watching the house burn down and calling it “progress,” while reassuring yourself that extraterrestrials will validate your lifestyle choices.
You said it yourself: you want the traditional family erased.
That’s not evolution, that’s civilizational suicide dressed up as enlightenment.
So go enjoy your dinner and a movie.
Some of us will continue fighting to keep human society from turning into the ideological wasteland you’re rooting for.
You’re terrified of Christian “domination” because someone might post the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall…meanwhile Islam is literally trying to replace the Constitution with Sharia, a full legal system that criminalizes free speech, abolishes women’s rights, and replaces democracy entirely.
If you can’t tell the difference between moral influence and legal supremacy, you’re not arguing, you’re hallucinating.
There is no replacement of the Constitution by Sharia; that is silly. We need to disregard BOTH myths and get on with reality.
You don’t get to call it a “myth” when there are people actively working toward it, openly stating it, and in some cases already practicing it.
That’s like calling fire a myth while your house is burning.
The difference between myth and threat is whether you’re paying attention.
A celestial deity creating all and ruling, that’s a myth, fanatic belief is delusional, and your rules of life are superstitions that lead to bigotry. I include all three Abrahamic faiths.
Oh wow, bold take: “All religion is myth, therefore every ideology is equally imaginary and we should totally ignore the one actively trying to install a legal system that outlaws everything you just said.”
That’s not intellectual courage, that’s the emotional support atheist version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “SKY DADDY BAD” while ignoring the actual geopolitical threat right in front of your face.
Christianity built the civilization where you get to sit comfortably on Wi-Fi and call it all a myth.
Under Sharia, your little “all religions are superstition” monologue gets you a prison sentence, or worse.
You’re not the brave truth-teller in this scenario.
You’re the guy standing in a burning building shouting, “Fire is just a myth invented by cavemen to explain lightning.”
But sure, keep yelling at the clouds while the real-world ideology you refuse to acknowledge is writing laws, gaining power, and doesn’t give a single flying holy text about your enlightened hot takes.
Your mythology causes conflicts. Your deity religions are mythologies just like the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman myths of deities. If we disregard all religions, neither Muslim nor Christian nor Jew has anything to fight about.
Gotcha, the “if everyone just stopped believing things, everything would be fine” theory, straight from the Unicorn Institute of Geopolitics.
This isn’t about “religion causes conflict.”
Human beings form civilizations, identities, values, and yes, boundaries.
Conflict is not erased by erasing belief systems.
It’s defined by what replaces them.
You’re not proposing peace.
You’re proposing vacuum.
And nature doesn’t tolerate vacuums:
Remove Christianity? You don’t get harmony, you get nihilism filled by whatever ideology is most aggressive.
Remove family? You don’t get freedom, you get the state as parent.
Remove moral frameworks? You don’t get neutrality, you get power filling the void.
History lesson: when pagan Rome collapsed, Christianity filled the void.
When Christianity collapses, something else will fill the void.
Right now, that “something” is Islamic political expansion.
You think you’re eliminating conflict by abolishing religion.
You’re actually eliminating the only religion that protects your right to reject all religion.
If you think the path to peace is erasing belief systems rather than defending the one that built your freedom, you’re not anti-conflict, you’re anti-civilization.