“The policeman at the head of the investigation, Commander Andy Baker, warned anyone who carried out a similar murder - whatever religion they were - would suffer the severest penalties.”

And that is what is killing Britain. “Whatever religion they were.” I love it.

By now there’s something of an Anglo-American tradition along these lines, isn’t there? First there was President Eisenhower saying that he didn’t care what religion people had, as long as they had some religion. Then there was Prince Charles suggesting that the honorific of the Kings of England be changed to “Defender of the Faiths,” making it plural so as to include all religions. Then there was the order by the U.S. Defense Department that all several thousand U.S. military chaplains be investigated for possible sedition, not just the 12 Muslim chaplains. And now the suggestion by the British chief inspector that people of all religions are equally as likely as Muslims to commit honor killings!

How perfectly the sophistical/leftist notion of equality has been realized in our time: instead of treating equals equally and unequals unequally, we treat unequals equally.

By the way, Thrasymachus, why do you name yourself after a sophist?

It goes back much further than President Eisenhower. Like one gentleman seeking skilled tradesmen for projects at his manor:

“I would not confine you to Palatines. If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Athiests.”

General Washington to Tench Tilghman, Mar 24, 1784

The need for laborers. I think that’s where part of the problem originated. But now that we see clear evidence of where this ‘openness’ leads, which the General probably couldn’t have foreseen, I suppose we’re expected to believe that a few daughters stabbed here or there are an acceptable sacrifice for the enriching benefits of ‘diversity,’ (notwithstanding the blustering of Commander Baker.)

Now if a Christian man would ignore the general guidance of Scripture in dating outside the Christian faith, and choose to date a Mohammedan woman, he ought to at least be informed that he is potentially putting her life at risk. That seems a minimal step under the circumstances.

What edition of Washington’s writings are you using?

You can see a handwritten copy here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage011.db&recNum=164

I checked a few Internet quotes, which agreed in text, one of which was used in the following speech:

http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/stagser/s1259/131/html/gw22299spech.html

I first came across this quote years ago in one of my biographies, but I’d have to do some digging to find which one it was.

“By the way, Thrasymachus, why do you name yourself after a sophist?”

I sometimes need a reminder not to take myself too seriously. Thrasymachus was, as you recall, soundly trounced by Socrates in the opening chapters of The Republic.

LOL.

That’s the first time I’ve heard of someone using a classical pseudonym for such a purpose. :-)

“First there was President Eisenhower saying that he didn’t care what religion people had, as long as they had some religion.”

I believe that this is one of those stories that turns out on examination to be too good to be true. A year or two ago, Richard John Neuhaus of First Things tried to track down the quote and ended up concluding that there was no reliable evidence that Ike actually said it. (Alas, I don’t have a link to the actual article in Crisis. Perhaps another reader who is more familiar with the magazine could find it.)

Well, wouldn’t you know it; First Things turns out to have a search engine. Using it reveals that Fr. Neuhaus frequently questioned the authenticity of the supposed Eisenhower quote. Then, in the December 2001 issue, he reported that, while Ike may indeed have used the words attributed to him, the context shows that, “Far from demonstrating that Eisenhower was addle–brained or believed in a ‘religion in general’ in which all religions are equally valuable (the conventional interpretation of the statement), he was simply asserting an unexceptionable truth about the American founding, and about democracy more generally.”

Here’s the link (you have to scroll down to the bullet beginning “The mystery has been solved!”):
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0112/public.html#while