Posted on 05/30/2004 12:12:41 PM PDT by King Prout
I am an enemy of Islam.
I am an enemy of Islam, because Islam declared war upon me and all others like me.
Islam declared war on us about 1400 years ago.
I have read the Koran, and some of the Sunnah, and a decent sample of histories of the Caliphates and later islamic dominions, and from my reading I am convinced ever more concretely that Islam is implacably my enemy, intrinsically my enemy, at root and in all branches my enemy. Seeing my enemy, I am not ashamed to call it what it is: my enemy. Islam declared itself my enemy, has proven for 1400 years that it is my enemy, and the only rational response to this is to return the favor.
Thus, I am an enemy of Islam. Not of MUSLIMS, necessarily... but definitely of Islam itself.
As an American, one who strongly admires and supports the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, this has long presented me with a quandary: How can I justify unending hostility towards a "religion" (in quotes, because I think of Mohammed as a successful version of Charles Manson, an elder and successful Hitler, rather than the founder of a valid creed) and ecourage my countrymen and my government to eject Islam and all its trappings from my country? How can one universally ban even an insane bloodyhanded death-cult-cum-mafia without traducing the First Amendment rights of religion, speech, and association?
Then, it occured to me: We already have laws on the books which, if enforced, are capable of dealing a deathblow to this cancer, do we not?
Are there not laws which penalize inciting-to-riot? Are there not laws which penalize inciting-to-murder?
Could we not, in enforcement of these laws, justify penetration and heavy surveillance of every single mosque and madrassa in this land? Could we not then arrest, try, and imprision each and every single mullah, sheik, and imam who dared recite any one of the thousands of passages in the Koran and Sunnah which bear no interpretation other than an incitement to riot and murder non-muslims? Could we not, in addition, prosecute their congregations as conspirators to riot and murder?
This bears looking into.
This bears serious inspection and discussion, and if it looks like it holds water legally, it needs to be rammed down the throats of our elected representatives.
see Joe6pack's post #14.
I believe Christian and Judaic sects are a LOT safer from prosecution than Islam, based on these rulings
Sedition was proscribed in 1798, but Jefferson refused to enforce it. It was then revived in 1917, but overturned in 1921. One last time, it was tried with the Smith act of 1940, which is no longer in use.
The reason is that being a free country, you're free to want to overthrow the government. If you should choose to advocate violent methods to that end, we have laws against inciting riots, violence, conspiracy et al. In short, the United States makes a clear distinction between the idea, and the action.
I am not sure that holds water.
Saying "it is so" does not affect reality.
The commandments to enslave, pillage, fight, murder, overthrow, and conquer are all intrinsic to the creed and wear the patina of Allah's endorsement.
To be Muslim, one accepts and endorses all that is Islamic.
That makes ALL Islam insurrection, conspiracy, sedition, and incitement. That makes Islam a topic of debatable legal position.
Yet, at the same time, we heavily infiltrate such groups as the Klan and the Aryan Nation in order to closely surveil them and catch them before they become a serious problem.
We recognise that they are free to gass their poison at will, but know damn well that they will turn to advocating violence sooner or later, and then we nail them.
We do this OPENLY.
We should apply the same standards to ALL Islam in this country, and I don't care how much CAIR squeals about it.
Yes, It is illegal on my property. Islam is my enemy!
one case in point: Islamic holy writ contains numerous instances of various flavors of exhortations to "kill the infidel wherever you find him".
Kinda hard to paint that "in the abstract", no?
Islam itself IS incitement to commit violence.
good to meet you, brother-in-spirit.
use ham sandwiches.
I will personally administer a wood-shampoo to whatever pol tries to make it so.
related topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144670/posts
"Islam’s Nazi Connections"
Thanks, but I'm a lady, not a man. LOL It happens all the time. It's the nickname. :-)
By Mark Edward Vande Pol, aka Carry_Okie
Copyright 2003, Wildergarten Press, all rights reserved.
Most Americans understand that maintaining religious independence requires matters of faith be immune from government influence. The difficulty in accommodating religious freedom isn't the private exercise of personal faith; it is the influence religious values can exert upon matters of policy that affect people who don't share those religious beliefs.
Religious conservatives don't seem to understand that when their beliefs affect public policy, people who do not share those beliefs rightly feel that their freedom has been restricted. Resulting laws can exert strong influences upon the age of consent, marriage, child rearing, divorce, education, or the conduct of businesses (such as TV censorship versus porn, or whether to license bathhouses).
Secular voters consequently confuse legitimate concerns about the fiscal cost of moral decay with dogmatic religious beliefs, discounting such concerns as religious conceit. Thus any effort to impose uniform moral standards in public policy, nationwide, will be fraught with conflict unless all individuals hold the same beliefs.
No problem! Current government policy is to "educate" children from pre-school to after-school allowing totally debauched TV to cover everything else. They'll make sure the little urchins think all alike.
You don't want that for your kids?
Our federal system was designed to balance the need for a unified nation with accommodating variety in community standards, often reflecting various religious practices. The Constitution limited the Federal government from intruding in local affairs, thus allowing a State or community to adopt local ordinances reflecting particular beliefs. Quakers were dominant in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, Protestants in New England, and so on. More distinctive religious sects seeking near total autonomy such as the Amish, Mennonites, Shakers, Oneida, or Amana formed fairly isolated communities further afield.
That federal ethic started to break down when the courts interpreted the 14th Amendment equal protection clause as superceding other Constitutional limits on Federal power (particularly States rights and individual property rights). Although it may have been a good thing for racial equality (at first), the consequences are slowly evolving into religious oppression.
Nowhere has government intervention into religious freedom been more intense than in issues concerning homosexuals. The Bible has numerous obvious provisions declaring homosexual practice an abomination. As cases charging "discrimination in places of public accommodation" progress through the courts, we are not far from 14th Amendment equal protection being interpreted such that any effort to restrict the activities of homosexuals is considered illegal. Such a ruling might be enforced with the threat of loss of tax-exempt status.
So much for a nation founded in religious freedom. Note the role the 14th and 16th Amendments play in bringing Federal power to bear. It is selectively enforced uniformity.
This Federally enforced "uniform diversity" has made society both more mobile and culturally dispersed, making it more difficult to maintain a group holding strong beliefs over succeeding generations. Remnant groups end up isolated, issuing defensive pronouncements that irritate the secular public who would prefer that the "Fundies" kept to themselves. Unfortunately, such isn't allowed.
America was a haven for religious communities long before the Constitution was written. Since that time, the United States has shown openness to diverse religious beliefs unique in history. The only way to resolve cultural distinctions over religion is to re-institute Federalism citing the right of free association as pre-existing almost all other American law. Respecting that principle, people who prefer moral licentiousness should be free to congregate. Those who seek to restore the free exercise of religion and make a public matter of it should then be able to do so as well. The social and fiscal results of the different communities would speak volumes about the relative merits of these opposing moral standards, as California's fiscal crisis so eloquently demonstrates.
Emphasis upon free association is only a start. Putting enforcement of the equal protection clause and income tax regulations in their proper relationship with property rights and States' rights is also critically important, and not just to religious freedom.
There are, however, limits to free association. There is one major religion operating within this country with a written doctrine that advocates complete overthrow of the Constitution and replacement of our entire body of laws: Islam. When free association is used for purposes of sedition and bigotry we must make exception concerning free exercise. It is a test of our ability as a nation to make distinctions upon individual behavior that may do more to transform an ancient religion for the better than all the soldiers in the Middle East.
The problems we face in reestablishing rights of free association are not only Constitutional but inherent to the manner in which cases are brought to higher courts, something never defined by any legislative or Constitutional process. Appellate cases only test those questions that are raised at a lower level. We often wait decades for critical interpretations of the Constitution that then fail to weigh conflicting elements of that supreme law of the land. Citing but one part of the document as legally compelling in a court of law, without taking the whole of its provisions into account has perverted the intent of the law beyond recognition. A case citing only the 14th Amendment or the commerce clause might bring very different consequences to the same case when citing the 5th or 10th Amendments. It is not only unjust but also dishonest not to weigh all applicable competing considerations in a court of last resort. Not to clarify the full set of considerations in a ruling violates higher standards than the rule of law.
No matter how true it is that adhering to the religious principles upon which this country was founded produces a happy, productive, and peaceful society, to support political arguments citing religious beliefs does a disservice to socially conservative policy proposals. Such arguments are far more effective in political life when citing only their logical necessity, leaving religious citations to matters of family and faith. People with an abiding sense of faith don't need or want religious direction from public officials. In many ways it trivializes matters of faith. In others, it invites the kind of backlash that has worked to restrict religious freedom.
nickname... and attitude.
thanks for correcting me.
thanks, CO - as ever, I am reminded that pinging you is a good idea.
It is not that mama controls the men, but that she controls the family ties. Those family ties lead to a tribalism with a long memory. In our society with the nuclear family being the heart of the family structure each generation recreates it self and then finds its place is society as a whole. Arab society does not regenerate itself in the same way and the family ties reaching back through the generations are much stronger. If the family and the ties to your clan are much stronger than your bond to the nation as a whole then you will have the strongest tribe ruling the land for the exclusive benefit of the tribe, not the Nation. Breaking up the matriarchal structure is the only way to break up that tribalism. The Italian Mafia was built around a similar matriarchal structure. After a couple of generations in America the family bonds started to break down and they began to rat each other out.
"You can tell a lot about a person by observing his priorities..."
So what ARE your priorities?
I doubt it. This map is a little outdated. There is a cell in Buffalo, NY and another in the northeast, plus the one in Tacoma that isn't on this map. God only knows how many more are living here since this map was made. :(
I'm just hanging on!
Well for the moment understanding the matriarchal nature of Arab/Muslim society would be one priority. I have been speculating on how that one difference in priorities affects their whole culture. In our culture family is formed around husband and wife, which generally leads to children. The result is a focus on the future. In the Arab world children are raised by the women and the only real family bonds a man has are to his mom, resulting in predominate focus on the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.