The Ten Worst Places to be a Christian

Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, is president of the International American Council and serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University. Rafizadeh is also a former senior fellow at the Nonviolence International Organization based in Washington, DC and is a member of the Gulf project at Columbia University. He can be reached at rafizadeh@fas.harvard.edu. Follow Rafizadeh at @majidrafizadeh.


Somalia Secret ChristiansThere are some common characteristics, intriguing trends and phenomena among the countries that have been specified as the top ten worst nations for Christians or religious minorities.

The top ten countries for persecuting Christians over the last year were ranked: North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Maldives, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen, according to Open Doors USA, an organization that monitors and exposes Christian persecution around the globe. Particularly, the “2014 World Watch List”, a rather nuanced report, has highlighted these nations based on deep structures of persecution.

Going through the list, the question that comes to mind is what most of these countries have in common? Nine of the top ten (aside from North Korea), seem to be Islamic states with a majority Muslim population.

While I was living in the Middle East (both in Arab and Persian countries), I would repeatedly hear arguments from officials or others claiming that the country respects the rights of the minorities, particularly Christians, and that Islam is the most tolerant religion towards Christianity and Judaism.

Yet, why are these Muslim states and nations always at the top ranks of lists that chronicle places where Christians and religious minorities are systematically persecuted and killed? 

The domination of Islamic states on the list of the worst places to be a Christian or another religious minority is not only limited to the report of the Open Doors USA. Several other human rights groups and governmental reports have come to similar results. However, unfortunately, the liberal media is less likely to report this news, fearing that they will offend the Muslim/Arab/Persian countries. Almost no liberal politician will also issue a simple statement condemning these persecutions, limitations of religious freedom, and egregious human rights violations.

While many Islamic leaders and Muslims would immediately point out that Islam is not the problem, the indispensible question remains: why Islamic countries are the ones with the most persecutions, tortures, and killings of religious minorities and particularly Christians.

The ideology of Islam, without a doubt, has something to do with these findings. In all the aforementioned Islamic countries, the law of the court is based on Islamic jurisprudence, the Sharia, and Islamic laws and constitutions.

Christians and minorities are being systematically targeted by two types of institutions. First of all, it is the Islamic state and the Islamic ruling party that has the power to arrest Christian and minorities, imprison them for years, torturing and even killing them on the basis of their faith and belief in Christ (or belief in any other person and book rather than Muhammad and the Quran). Many Christians and other religious minorities have to hide their religious beliefs, bibles, their religious practices and decision to follow Christ.

The second critical organized institution that targets Christians and other religions is not from the top— the state and government— but from the bottom. These are independent Islamic groups or individuals who view religious minorities including Christians as infidels (Kufar). Across the spectrum, they view Christians and other religions as either incomplete religious ideologies, or as heretic religions.

Based on Islamic rules and Sharia law, these groups found it mandatory to take the objectives of Allah, Muhammad, Islam, and Quran into their own hand. In exchange, these actors are promised a precious afterlife, praised by Allah and Muhammad. They are also promised by Sharia law, Quranic verses, Allah, and Muhammad, to sleep with as many virgins as they desire, and to drink the best wine— basically everything that they are forbidden to do or get in this world.

While the Islamic states dominated Open Doors’ 2014 world watch list— accounting for nine of the ten countries with the worst records regarding persecutions of Christians— Islamic states also dominated the full 50-country list released on Wednesday. According to Open Doors USA, from North Africa to Pakistan, Islamic extremism is “the main engine driving persecution of Christians,”

Not only do Christians have to fear being persecuted for their faith, hiding their decision to follow Christ, they also have to deal with the corrupt and unjust system that excludes religious minorities.

In most of these countries, Christians cannot hold key political positions, they cannot be judges, become president, and are excluded from many opportunities. At the end, there is no plausible argument claiming that the ideology of Islam does not have to anything to do with these persecutions. It is not a coincidence that Muslim states dominate the list of the worst places to be a Christian. It is not an accident that 9 out of the top 10 countries have Islam and Sharia as the religion and law of the land.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • ahmad76

    Ok, then for Muslims the worst place to live is US.

    • Softly Bob

      Then Muslims should leave the US. Simple solution.

    • JoJoJams

      Actually, for most muslims, the worst place to live is……Any islamic controlled, theocratic, Shia following regime. More muslims are killed by their fellow loony co-religionists than by any other group of people on the face of this tiny planet.

    • gray_man

      Only a moron would believe that.
      Now if you would like to make the USA the worst place for muslims to live, I’m all in favor.

      • Softly Bob

        Nice use of the word ‘moron’ . Doesn’t make one ounce of what you’ve said true though.

        • gray_man

          “Doesn’t make one ounce of what you’ve said true though.”
          Well moron number one spoke up, now unless you want to be moron number two, you should bother to read who I’m writing to before commenting.

          • Softly Bob

            Sorry dude, the posts were all mangled.

          • gray_man

            OK, and I didn’t mean to come off harsh. A long day.

    • LaValette Conservative

      I hear Karbala is nice, especially around Ashura.

    • ServosT

      I can believe that. USA is still one of the most Christian nation in the world, I can see how that would be awful for a moslem. For a mohammedian to see a Christian church and know that it isn’t legal to burn it to the ground must cause some distress. A muslim would suffer greatly walking into a bookstore and seeing multiple shelves full of Bibles and Christian literature. And, as nearly all our women walk around flaunting an uncovered face, I imagine the natural urge for a muslim man to rape these women must be nearly uncontrollable.

    • Randy Kaplan

      Oh, I only wish that it were! I urge all my fellow conservatives to be aggressive, forceful, confrontational, and accusatory to any American Muslims they encounter. The Muslims’ own polls – especially those of CAIR – have consistently shown for a period of some twenty years now that American Muslims tend to actively approve or at least not actively oppose Muslim acts of terror anywhere in the world. I do not believe that Islam is compatible with Western civilization and values. I think it should be destroyed, so of course I also think we should do all we can to make American Muslims as uncomfortable as the Israeli Jews who have had to live in the shadow of falling missiles and exploding bombs for so many years. They’re not our neighbors; they’re either our enemies or willing fellow travelers of our enemies. And the enemies are not just specifically the enemies of America or its values; these barbarians are at war with the whole world. I’m more than ready to give them the war they want.

    • Abduk

      Muslims living in the US are free to get out.

  • ahmad76

    Ok, then for Muslims the worst place to live is US..

  • ahmad76

    1. US 2. Britain 3.Sweden 4.Finland, 5. France 6……

  • BenZacharia

    ahmad76 at least here they don’t hang you from a crane for your man love Thursdays. That has to count for something doesn’t it? Or do you prefer little 9 year old girls like your namesake Mo? P i s s be upon him, he did have a thing for camel u r I n e didn’t he?

    • ahmad76

      I think you are all brainwashed. hopefully sb will show guidance

      • defcon 4

        An islam0fascist calling anyone “brainwashed”. Irony so thick it hits you like a brick.

  • DaCoachK

    You forgot to put New York City and San Francisco, two places filled with homos who despise Christians.

    • BenZacharia

      “homos” and DimocRats, but I repeat myself. Apologies to M twain.

    • gray_man

      But they are not killing Christians.
      Big difference.

      • sane

        Ever heard of HIV,? aren’t they, I just love it when they drink out of our communal cup, and there HIV positive…..Where forced to have them in our midst , I refused my eye Doc. primitive pressure test when I notice the patient before had an I/V cuff on his upper arm ? when I asked the Doc. he admitted that the man had AID full blown…..There in your face (risking…I have personal knowledge of that.. with a family friend brother) he’s dead and so are all his multiple lovers)……….I wonder if the obama-nation healthcare fiasco of coverage for pre existing diseases was because of (HIV) ,I was informed many years ago that the HIV would destroy the health care system…….

        • gray_man

          Yes I have heard of HIV. If you are afraid of catching HIV, stop having sex with them.

    • defcon 4

      They’re free to despise whoever they want. That’s the price of freedom.

    • BS77

      Another place that is rough on Christians and conservatives :.Hollywood.

    • Randy Kaplan

      Coach, I live in the Bay Area, and I agree with our characterization of the anti-Christian attitudes of lunatic left here. I lived in New York for just two years, and it was a long time ago (1987-89), so my perceptions may not be accurate, but it seemed to me that New York then was less rabidly anti-Christian than the Bay Area is now. Part of it was that the proportion of the homosexual population was smaller in New York, and the convoluted politics of New York did not necessarily require other groups besides gays to profess hatred for Christians. I also feel personally that the strong Jewish influence in New York, particularly Manhattan, ameliorated the anti-Christian views to some degree. But, sadly, in the course of my lifetime, American Jewry degenerated into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Left. For every Horowitz, Kristol, Levin, Cantor, Mandel, there are thousands of knee-jerk hard leftists. In addition, politically conservative Jews are singled out, targeted, shunned, ostracized, and just plain made to feel unwelcome in the overwhelming majority of American Jewish congregations. Sooner or later there may be some backlash, and the current Jewish leadership will be held to account for their selling of a religion to a political party, but I think it is far more likely that the generally rabid leftism of most American Jews will spur a resurgence of anti-Semitism.

      • defcon 4

        THe only resurgence of antisemitism I’m seeing where I live is islamic — especially in colleges and unis.

        • Randy Kaplan

          I participated in counterdemonstrations against Islamic anti-Semitism at San Francisco State University and at Stanford (where my sign was forcibly taken from me and I was beaten to the ground by Muslims while campus cops just watched), so I am definitely aware of what you refer to, defcon4. But you see no anti-Semitism anywhere else in the news? The ASA and other anti-Israel boycotts? The entire soi-disant “BSD” (boycott, sanction, and disinvest) movements aimed at Israel? The entire armory of the UN, representing not only the Muslims but also the socialist left across the world, constantly aimed at Israel? You see no anti-Semitism in Abbas’s refusal to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist? You see no potential for any backlash when the staunchest defenders of Israel outside its borders are American evangelical Christians, while the overwhelming majority of American Jewry aligns itself more and more closely with the socialist collectivist left?

          With respect, defcon 4, I think you just opted for the quick and not-quite-thoroughly thought-out rejoinder. OTOH, I don’t know where you live – but to be perfectly honest, unless you live in Kiryas Joel, Williamsburg, Borough Park, or some other haredi ultra-Orthodox Jewish enclave, I’m not aware of ANY sizeable Jewish community in this country that isn’t 80%-plus Democratic, and mostly hard left, so I think you may not be as aware of the growing anti-Semitism as you might be.

          • Drakken

            Next time carry a bigger stick, and swing like your trying to make a home run, the muzzy will learn that you will not go quietly next time. Oh yes of course, next time the muzzy has a demonstration, balloons full of red or yellow paint works great. For future reference of course. A pocket full of M-80′s also makes for a fun time as well.

          • Randy Kaplan

            Thanks for the good advice.

          • defcon 4

            No one was calling for the extermination of Jews at USC until the f’ing muzzies showed up. USC’s MSU had, on their homepage (sponsored by the university) a hadith that called for the worldwide extermination of Jews. I only knew about it because David Horowitz reported it.

          • Randy Kaplan

            On behalf of Jews everywhere, this former Jew wishes to express his gratitude that when Muslims call for the extermination of Jews (aka when Muslims breathe), you are exercised to take notice. When the Iranians have nuked Tel Aviv and leftists have banished every non-secular Jew from every college and university in the world, we will, from our graves and our exile, be eternally grateful that such events might bother you a little bit.

          • defcon 4

            Have you ever thought that actions follow intent? Or have you ever thought at all?

  • Adheeb

    “While I was living in the Middle East (both in Arab and Persian countries), I would repeatedly hear arguments from officials or others claiming that the country respects the rights of the minorities, particularly Christians, and that Islam is the most tolerant religion towards Christianity and Judaism.”

    Sometimes Muslims lie.

    • Sharps Rifle

      “Sometimes”???? More often than not!

    • gray_man

      Their religion allows lying to further the cause of islam.

  • wileyvet

    There have been more than 22,000 terrorist attack since 9/11 around the world. Thirty conflicts involving Muslims and their neighbours. All of these perpetrated in the name of Islam, sanctioned by Allah and his prophet, enshrined in the Koran. This has been going on for nearly 1400 years. There is no peaceful version of Islam. They follow the same Koranic teachings today as did Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. The first 3 out of 4 successors to Mohammed were assassinated . Violence gave birth to Islam then, and fuels it today.

  • Rob

    Christians living in Muslim countries are being discriminated against and killed because that is what Islam demands. It seems to me that Islam doesn’t ‘have something to do’ with this ongoing persecution. It is front and centre.

    • defcon 4

      This article definitely reeks of islam0fascist apologism.

      • LaValette Conservative

        I think the author is addressing those not already holding membership in the choir. The are many, including conservatives, who still cling to the illusion that the behavior of jihadists is somehow anomalous.

        The whole Arab Spring exercise in empowering Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood was the product of a line of thought deeply held by progressives and neo-cons alike. That thought was and still is “If we let the racists and religious bigots out of prison, and let them run the Arab world, they will stop being racists and religious bigots”. Because human behavior is socially determined, oppression and poverty create extremism, not the other way around, right?

        • defcon 4

          Funny cartoon.

  • knowshistory

    when will the citizens of infidel countries learn to treat muslims in their countries in the same manner that infidels are treated in muslim countries? if muslims in infidel majority countries were deprived of their welfare checks, forced to pay a special and onerous tax, denied the protection of law, disarmed, forced to bow to any infidel they met, executed if a male muslim married, cohabitated with, or bred an infidel, forced to surrender their daughters to forced marriage and conversion to infidel faiths, and were subject to beatings or killing by any infidel who took a disliking to them, then, and only then, would muslims be treated as they deserve, which is to say, like they treat infidels. since the poor brain-damaged silly infidels of the west are not willing to treat their enemies as their enemies have been treating them for 14 centuries, the silly fools of the west should at least send their muslim invaders home. but they will not they prefer rape, subjugation, slavery then death. they will get what they prefer.

    • Randy Kaplan

      Well, KH, one reason is that they aren’t “infidel countries.” They are highly moral countries with deep religious traditions who do not sink to the level of cynical barbarity of the practices of dhimmitude. I don’t wish to emulate Muslims; I wish to destroy them. But I don’t want our country to lose its moral center in the process.

      • defcon 4

        You’ll either lose your moral center or have it taken from you by muslime barbarians — as the kind people of Lebanon (lebanon was once a majority Christian country) have found out the hard way.

  • defcon 4

    Islamic extremism is the reason why everyone non-muslim is persecuted in all islamic states eh? I would’ve thought it was just normative islam. After all, it’s not like muslimes have just started killing and persecuting the unbeliever, it’s a time honored tradition that dates all the way back to the time of muhammad.

    • LaValette Conservative

      There is no extreme Islam, there is no moderate Islam, only Islam. -Recep Tayyip Erdogan

  • Eyad

    Who started the first world war ? Muslims ?
    Who started the second world war ? muslims ?
    Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nakazaki ? Muslims ??
    Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America ? Muslims ??
    Who killed more than 50 millions of Indians in south America ? muslims ??
    Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in Atlantic ocean ? did Muslims do it ??
    Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? muslims ?
    Who killed thousands of people in Vietnam ? Muslims ?
    No , They weren’t Muslims …… }

    And today you can notice that Muslims are always the victims when you look at what is happening in Burma , Yemen , Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan , Chechenia , Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Palestine ……etc

    But media ways are controlled by non Muslims even inside Muslims countries that is why they hide all kinds of crimes against Muslims such as burning kids alive in Burma and bombing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan..etc .And they show all crimes done by few Muslims even if it was killing an insect.

    Subhan Allah! despite of that, Islam is spreading so fast

    • Eyad

      People look at yourselves in the mirror. Im not saying revert to islam im say be mature and wise up a bit. You’re just not making it any better. You pretend to bring peace to all countries but instead you just send them to the ground. And please if you know any country that the US invaded to bring it peace and actually brought it something other than destruction and innocent people’s lives, go ahead and name me one.

      • therealpm

        You go on and on about the US, but what did Islam ever bring to any country other than death, destruction and slavery?

        Look around the world today. In just about every trouble spot Muslims are involved, sometimes on both sides. Why is it that wherever Islam abuts with another culture there is always violence? Why is it that Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Sikhs are able to live together in perfect harmony, but Muslims are unable to live peacefully even amongst themselves?

        Why would any intelligent, civilised, and cultured person want to regress to a primitive ideology that celebrates savagery and barbarism? When is Islam going to leave the Dark Ages behind and step into the modern world, as everyone else did centuries ago? I suspect the truth is that Islam is unable to reform itself as it is in reality just the cult of the murderous warlord Mohammed, and as such it has no place in the modern world. Islam’s goal is instead to drag everyone else back to the Dark Ages, where it’s acolytes would not feel so inferior when they compare others achievements to their own lack of accomplishments.

        • Randy Kaplan

          And with this post, sir, I agree with every single word, and I applaud your clear-eyed view of the essential evil of Islam. It is NOT capable of reform; it IS essentially a murderous cult writ large, and it needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

      • Softly Bob

        Most of your claims are either false or red herrings. The nuclear bombs on Japan are irrelevant because they were the result of a war started by somebody else. Are you claiming that the U.S. nuked Japan for the fun of it?
        The Second World war was started by the Nazis (who were actually in league with Arab Muslims).
        All your other arguments are irrelevant, for example, slavery may have been practised in the U.S. but it was also the U.S. that abolished it. Why did they abolish it? Because they finally realised that it was wrong, that’s why.
        Have Muslims stopped committing terrorist attacks? No they haven’t.
        By the way Muslims are not the victims in Burma. They actually started all the trouble. In the end the Buddhists had no choice but to start fighting back. Try checking the actual news reports for once.
        You’re incredibly misinformed my friend, and ignorant.

      • Softly Bob

        Er… Germany World War 2. Er…. Japan World War 2. Er… Korea – thus helping to liberate the South from a despotic north.

        • Randy Kaplan

          I presume that Eyad, this rabid anti-American Muslim defines “US invasion” to mean when any US troops enter another country, even if invited. So don’t forget Libya, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Albania, Greece, Italy, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Mexico, Canada, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Cuba, Ottoman Empire, Algeria, Brazil, Liberia, most of the former countries of West Africa with the anti-slave patrols from 1820 through the start of the Civil War, including the Gold Coast, the Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Sierra Leone, Senegal, the Gambia, etc., Spain, Indonesia, Peru, Nicaragua, Japan, China, Uruguay, Panama, Angola, Samoa, Chile, Ethiopia, Honduras, Guatemala, Turkey, Costa Rica, St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad and Tobago, Iceland, Israel, Formosa (Taiwan), Lebanon, Thailand, Zaire, El Salvador, Chad, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Central African Republic, Gabon, Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, Australia, Nigeria, Georgia, Djibouti, Uganda, Jordan, New Zealand. . . and if you wish to give the US some credit for other Allied liberations of death camps accomplished by British and Soviet troops, you could add Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus,, Ukraine, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom to the list, too.

          • Randy Kaplan

            Whoops, I left off Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Singapore, Botswana, Ghana, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Tunisia, Zambia, South Africa, Kyrgyzstan, and Portugal.

    • defcon 4

      I’d like to see proof that 100 million native Americans were killed in N. America. Ditto for the 50 million South Americans.
      Just for the record islam0idjit, muslimes were the supply side of the African slave trade, just as they are now.
      I’d also like to see proof that 20 million Aborigines were killed in AUS.
      Your AL Taqiyya needs a lot more work.

      • therealpm

        As anyone with an understanding of hunter gatherer societies would know the actual numbers would have been nowhere near those figures. Hunter gatherer tribes require large territories in order to acquire enough food to survive, and this severely limits their numbers just as it does that of other hunting animals.

        The total number of natives in North America (excluding Mexico) before the Europeans arrived was probably less than ten million. In Australia, which is mostly desert, there were unlikely to have been more than one million Aborigines. South America and Mexico did contain settled populations and could therefore have supported considerably larger numbers, perhaps tens of millions.

        Native peoples who had lived in isolation for many centuries were extremely vulnerable to imported diseases to which they frequently had no immunity. It is very likely that at least half the population was wiped out by the first wave of imported diseases, which were inadvertently carried by the earliest explorers.

        • Randy Kaplan

          I’m a conservative and a rabid hater of Islam, but realpm, your post is absurd. Genocide is genocide; arguing over the number of victims is silly. Yes, you’re right about hunter gatherer societies, but that’s an inaccurate description of Australian aborigines, as well as a significant proportion of Native American tribes. But the bottom line is that here in America, we killed – not by disease or famine, but by deliberate war – the overwhelming majority of Native Americans, and we eviscerated the culture and way of life of the survivors, and made them captive peoples in their own lands. It’s all long, long, ago, and the most significant thing about Native Americans in current society is the phony proliferation of highly questionable “tribes” claiming everything from casino rights to massive welfare payments. I lived in Australia, and as far as I can tell, while there is some sense of national shame in regard to the genocide that killed 97% of the aborigines, for the most part, Australians have little interest in aborigines or aboriginal culture. And there’s a good reason for that: aboriginal culture is about a quarter of an inch deep, and has virtually zero relevance to contemporary life. And the surviving aboriginals themselves are mostly a bunch of degenerate, lazy drunks – hard to feel sympathy for an ethnic group who behave so badly.

          The “imported disease” story is vastly, vastly exaggerated. If you have never been exposed to a particular germ or parasite, are you more likely to catch the resulting disease than if you had had some exposure that would give you the chance to develop some immunity? Sure. Will it therefore kill you? That’s the Big Lie; the answer is not usually. Diseases that aren’t typically fatal without treatment do NOT have greatly higher fatality rates in previously unexposed populations. Nor are all diseases transmitted in the same fashion, nor by casual contact. I have NEVER heard your “half the population” statistic anywhere, and I simply don’t believe it. It comports neither with immunology or the science of infectious diseases as we know them today, nor does it comport with any historical data with which I am familiar. It’s pointless to “absolve” white colonizers of America of genocide of Native Americans, especially by “blaming” a large portion of the deaths on diseases that JUST DON’T KILL. A lack of natural immunity is NOT parallel to what happened to AIDS patients in the early days of the epidemic, where deaths from opportunistic infections, unusual and unexpected unrelated diseases, and commoner disease processes run wild in the virtual absence of ANY significant sustained immune response were common causes of AIDS-related deaths. Healthy populations exposed to new disease organisms develop some degree of natural immunity fairly quickly – and all it takes is SOME degree of immunity. More Native Americans would catch a new disease than the percentage of whites who would catch it – but most of those diseases weren’t killers, and just that “SOME degree of immunity” would be sufficient so that they would survive the disease, even if they suffered more or in greater numbers than the white victims of the same disease. And if you survive a disease, you gain a greater degree of immunity from it. You also have an implicit assumption of a higher-than-generally-assumed rate of infections among the people most likely to come into close contact with Native Americans, which seems ridiculous – you’re talking about hale, hearty, rugged farmers, scouts, builders, explorers. Also, infectious phases of even the most deadly diseases are relatively short; given the relative scarcity of doctors and medical care at the time, when you got sick, you tended to simply stay indoors until the worst phase passed. You didn’t go out and rape female Indians in order to feel better.

          It does not do any good to attempt to absolve Americans of genocide of Native Americans, nor colonial Australians of the genocide of aborigines. Neither of those shameful chapters of human history have a fraction of the relevance of the more recent genocides like the Nazis, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Darfur and South Sudan, and the Muslims ongoing genocidal campaigns against Israel and against the civilized Western world, among any number of others. We aren’t going to do a better job of avoiding future genocides by pretending that we don’t have genocide in our own past. Santayana, anyone?

          • defcon 4

            Unlike islam0nazis, restitution has been made in the US. ALL native Americans have access to a free university or college education. Tribal lands are semi-autonomous and have created tribes wealthy beyond your wildest dreams (through Indian gaming casinos). Islam0nazis deny all the genocides they’ve committed since the early 20th century. A denial that doesn’t include any reparations of any kind. Not for the 2.5 to 3 million Hindus slaughtered by muslimes in Bangladesh in the 1970′s, not for the ten thousand kufr murdered by muslimes in E. Timor, not for the 2.5 to 3 million Armenian and Assyrian Christians slaughtered in Turkey in the early 20th century, not for the million or so kufr slaughtered by muslimes in the Sudan/Darfur.

          • Randy Kaplan

            First of all, restitution for genocide is neither really even possible, nor does it absolve the perpetrators of their moral guilt. Second of all, I have never suggested for an instant ANY comparison of the genocides perpetrated by non-Muslims should be or could be compared to those perpetrated, still being conducted, and still being gleefully planned and contemplated by the hideous, subhuman Muslims. While I scoff at the notion of restitution for genocide, you are certainly correct that not only do Muslims completely reject any such impulses and lie and deny their culpability in endless acts of horror and barbarism, it is completely ingrained in their cultures and their religious belief. Christianity has a few stains in its past, as does America, as does Judaism, as does any number of other religions and nations. The difference is, as you note, that despite the efforts of the left to mischaracterize the conduct and policies of the West, we left our barbarism behind a long time ago, and we are ashamed of it and strive NOT to repeat it. Islam is the cancer that delights in death, and it should be wiped out from the face of the earth forever. THAT is a genocide that well might end all genocide forever, and I would gladly be a soldier in that war.

          • Randy Kaplan

            Note to defcon4: I hadn’t noticed before that while I am arguing with you and not necessarily being particularly polite, you are giving me likes on many of my posts, even though we obviously disagree on some stuff. So I wanted to say thanks and that you’re a class act, and sorry if I crossed any lines.

          • defcon 4

            Maybe you should tell your theory to the victims’ familes in Bangladesh, E. Timor or the Sudan. Tell them that restitution wouldn’t help to heal their pain.

          • Drakken

            Genocide for intents and purposes is nothing more than warfare by another means, what do you think the Romans, Greeks, Vikings, people of Germania did to their enemies? They slaughtered them to the last man, enslaved their women and children, sorry, that is the brutal history of the world and other cultures of China, Indochina and the Indian subcontinent were worse. Trying to apply modern morals or ethics to pure unadultered warfare only weakens us, and strengthens our enemies, it is that simple.

          • Randy Kaplan

            I don’t wish to specifically apply some modern theory of warfare to wars of the past. I’m not a believer, so neither am I trying to apply the morals and ethics of Judaism or Christianity to the present or future contemplated wars. I can think of lots of occasions when a country near victory stopped a war too soon, only making it necessary to fight again later, so I’m not an advocate of laying down hard and fast rules about what war is and isn’t supposed to be. But while I may not be able to define the distinctions precisely or even coherently, I do see both a qualitative and quantitative difference between war and genocide, and not only am I not comfortable with giving sanction to most genocide, I believe that if you think of genocide as nothing more than a species of warfare, you will only encourage genocide and give it moral imprimatur, I think its clear that you have more experience of war than I do, Drakken, so I am not trying to extend an argument with you or say that your views are outside the pale of decency or anything like that. But neither can I simply defer to your view on this one, either. I think, respectfully, that we’re going to have to agree to disagree here, because I don’t think it’s that simple. But if you were the general and I were the politician with the purse strings, I imagine that I would almost always defer to your judgment and see my job as getting you the resources and support you needed for the kind of war you wanted to conduct.

          • therealpm

            The Black Death in Europe killed between one third and one half of the population in the 1340s and 1350s. In some areas the death toll was as high as 80-90%.

            So disease can wipe out whole populations. In the more densely populated regions of Mexico and Peru it is widely accepted that most of the native people had died of European diseases, particularly smallpox and measles, within a generation of their first contact with the Spanish.

            I do not however deny for one second that deliberate genocide was perpetrated against the natives in both America and Australia.

          • Randy Kaplan

            I think I know why the Black Death got its name, and how many people it killed. No one disputes that disease can wipe out populations. But your citing the irrelevant case of bubonic plague is just another demonstration of your ignorance of epidemiology. First of all, there’s an amazing lack of direct evidence for an assertion that is so widespread as the one that European diseases killed huge numbers of native populations. Second of all, there’s a huge element of magical thinking in the arguments. There is little difference among the various races in the acquisition of immunity to infectious disease, including Native Americans. (The same statement cannot be made in regard to Australian aborigines; there simply weren’t enough purebred or mostly aborigines left alive when medical technology had advanced enough to make credible studies and determinations in this area.) There were large-scale outbreaks of various infectious diseases of European and African origin (the latter usually as a result of the importation of African slaves to the New World) long before the advent of the British colonies in America and the American Revolution. Here’s the key question: if these previous outbreaks did not confer any immunity (and I don’t know how that would possibly happen), then why didn’t they wipe out Native Americans in the 1500s and 1600s? We know that Native Americans were not wiped out in those eras, in contrast to, say, the Incas and Aztecs, who were. Another question: if European diseases were some kind of magic bullet slaying Native Americans with ease, why did these diseases have little effect on the Native Americans of the western American plains and the Southwest? No, the argument is not convincing, and the evidence scanty at best. But the core of the issue is not epidemiology, immunity or the lack of it, or anything at all about diseases. It’s about morality. With a very few exceptions, there’s no evidence that Europeans ever tried to deliberately spread diseases among Native populations, because even if they had some natural immunity themselves, they would still have increased the chances of contracting such diseases themselves, in areas and conditions where medical help was scarce and ineffective. So EVEN IF the introduction of European and African infectious diseases played a significant role in the destruction of native populations, THERE WASN’T ANY INTENT INVOLVED. War, murder, forced displacement of peoples, destruction of habitats and food supplies – all the elements of genocide – all required INTENT and massive effort. The moral cesspool that intent and effort represented is undeniable, inexcusable, inescapable. And the evil this represents is even more contagious than many infectious diseases. Perhaps the best evidence of that is that the great George Washington even ordered the genocide of the Iroquois Nations in the Sullivan-Clinton Expeditions of 1779 and 1780.

          • defcon 4

            The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Tens of thousands died each year to appease their death cult. Maybe you would rather have them back?

          • Drakken

            You call it genocide, I call it warfare, we came, we saw and we conquered, and we have nothing to apologize for. We made this country what it is today, not the conquered natives. There are no morals and ethics when it comes to warfare, there is only the conquers and conquered.

          • Randy Kaplan

            I cannot disagree that the line between warfare and genocide is anything but crystal clear, and that others may have a different opinion of various actions in history than mine that may be equally valid or accurate. In all that, drakken, you have a good point.

            I would only refine your statement that “there are no morals and ethics when it comes to warfare, there is only the conquerors and the conquered” a little bit. Another truth is that you cannot stop the tide of history and the advancement of humanity. Often, advancement comes when the stronger defeats the weaker. Call it social Darwinism, call it whatever you like, it is to a large extent not only inevitable, it is desirable. Since I am not a believer, I can’t attribute it to the will of God, but I wouldn’t argue with someone who sees it that way. I say historically inevitable, you say the will of God – we’re not disagreeing. I guess I’m making the slightly different point that war is often inevitable, and the defeat of the weaker is also often inevitable, and a war undertaken when the outcome is more easily predictable is not any more morally fraught than the war fought by the underdog against the tyrant. It’s not quite the morally-neutral stance you seem to be taking, but I’m not criticizing you, I’m simply suggesting a supplementary point that makes your point less cruelly, if you will.

            But I thank you for a valid reminder. I think it’s stupid to waste moral energy on apologizing for things that are inevitable, or for things that your forebears may have done that you had nothing to do with, even if you benefited from the results, because, as you imply, well of course that’s the kind of result that was intended. If you’re not a Muslim, you don’t fight wars because you love death and killing; you have specific goals, and those goals involve either opposing evil or advancing good for your own people and allies. And there’s really no way to say that is wrong. I’m NOT a pacifist. I agree with Robert A. Heinlein, that “pacifism is as shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay – and claims a halo for his dishonesty.”

            Could America have become the greatest country ever on earth without exterminating most of the Native Americans? I don’t know, and I doubt anyone else does, either. But I DO know that America DID become and IS the greatest nation ever on earth, the Native Americans are gone, and like every other American (including the surviving Native Americans), I benefit from the results. And I agree with you that shedding crocodile tears over the past is pointless.

            Another Heinlein quotation relevant to your point: “I now define ‘moral behavior’ as ‘behavior that tends toward survival.’ I won’t argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word ‘moral’ to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define ‘behavior that tends toward extinction’ as being ‘moral’ without stretching the word ‘moral’ all out of shape.”

            I hope I wasn’t twisting morality out of shape and I thank you again for reminding me of reality and hard truths.

      • Hass

        It is estimated that Oz had @ 300k Aboriginals when European settlements started. Today that number is @ 275k.

    • http://baldilocks-talking.blogspot.com/ Juliette Akinyi Ochieng

      The Trans-Saharan Slave trade perpetrated by Arab Muslims and Muslim converts nearly destroyed black Africa. The practice was to kill or castrate all captured men and boys–a genocide that was going on long before Europeans and Americans arrived and which continues to this day.

    • Hass

      Did you get those figures from your local Mosquito?