"If we declare Islam a criminal enterprise aren't we severely damaging the 1st amendment? After all it is a recognized religion. I don't buy the whole TROP crap, but I do have friends from Iran, and Lebanon who are practicing Muslims, and I could no more tell them their religion is banned from the US than I could a Baptist, or Catholic. Heck I was raised a Methodist, and I feel with the liberal stance they have taken on almost every issue over the last 60 years, they might be as much of threat as the Muslims. Of course I am speaking from a sedition standpoint, obviously I don't think we're going to see any Methodists strapping bombs to their chest and blowing up the local mall, but they have been staunchly anti-everything Conservative, including the WOT and leading their members with that philosophy."
You are wrestling with some real problems. Here is my take. Each of our freedoms can be potentially limited: especially if the full continuation of that freedom threatens the very existence of our society.
For example, during the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (it means "show me the body" in Latin but don't ask me what the heck its significance is. The point is, this is an important freedom but Lincoln suspended it to prosecute the civil war and help preserve the Union. (I realize there are some on this web site who disagree with that goal, but that is a separate argument, in my view.)
Bush is partially suspended some freedoms in the war on terror.
So, the bottom line is, yes, we can ban Islam from the US if it is the only way to preserve a society worth living in.
Let me tell you a rather grisly story. Indonesia used to have about 3 million Chinese people living in it. Outside of China (in Asia), Chinese people tend to be very active and dominant: very successful in business and very influential. This has been going on for centuries. Some call the Chinese the Jews of Asia (I'm Jewish, so I'm allowed to say it).
At a certain point in time (this was maybe a couple of decades or so ago), the Indonesians realized that these Chinese were participating in a massive communist subversion attempt being orchestrated by the Chinese government for the purpose of having a communist government take over Indonesia. Hysteria swept Indonesia, they turned on the Chinese, and basically killed them all.
I'm not saying what they did was right. But the fact is, Indonesians have a reasonably good society today, something they probably would not have if they were spending all their time battling a powerful, devious, fairly largeif Chinese minority backed by the Chinese government.
The point is, societies have a right to defend themselves from attacks on their basic existence. Another good example is Russia at the time of the revolution. The first revolution was by Democratic Socialists, full of positive ideals. They tried to set up a democratic government respecting everybody's rights, but they were weak. After a while, they fell to the Communists. It seems like it would've been better if they were less idealistic, maybe trampling on some individual rights on occasion, but ruled effectively enough to prevent the Communists from taking over.
I am not saying that things have reached the point where we should ban Islam in United States. I do believe, however, that we should ban any further Islamic immigration at this time.
Realistically, we have already responded to some extent to the Islamic threat in United States. Mosques in the United States are being monitored by the federal government in various, pretty intense ways. CAIR, a pro-terrorist group of Islamic Americans, is fighting against this, with the help of the ACLU and the rest of the Hard Left, but so far they have failed.
What strikes me particularly about this article is the Black Muslim group in particular. Here, our hands may be tied, because any extraordinary action against them would be labeled as racist. I am not sure that a Republican administration would be able to weather that storm. Of course, under a Democratic administration that problem would not exist: presumably all of the internal monitoring of Muslims will be pretty much suspended if Hillary wins. Then we will simply have to weather the consequences (terrorism) as best we can.
I agree that declaring Islam a criminal enterprise would undermine the Constitution.
HST, something must be done -- I guess that close monitoring is the best we can do.
HST, we have ample proof that the Arabic and English words that Muslims use to describe their beliefs oftentimes differ markedly. On the one hand, we hear a Imman or Mullah calling for moderation and accommodation with the West when speaking in English. And, OTOH, the same man calling for death to all Infidels and destruction of the West when speaking in Arabic.
Yassir Arafat became a billionaire doing just that.
Why am I supposed to believe that ordinary Muslims are any different, especially when their religious instruction and the example set by their leaders teaches them to do so?
I am at the point in my life where I do not trust the word of any Muslim. It will be a long, long time -- on the order of Hell FReezing over -- before I do.
I am concerned for my country and the Western Culture. It is not even arguable that when comparing the cultures of Judeo-Christian countries with Islamic countries, Judeo-Christian is better is all respects.
I have no problem with Muslims who want to move to Western countries and live their lives as productive citizens therein. But when they do so, they must understand the culture and the society they are voluntarily moving to does not permit them to establish their own rules -- they must abide by the rules of the society they move into, or suffer the consequences, just as a native born person must abide by the same rules.
So, back to the beginning -- when a Muslim misbehaves, he/she must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, Political Correctness be dammed!
And, if we value our country, our way of life and our children and grandchildren's future, we'd best heavily monitor the activity of all Muslims in America (Black and otherwise!) and not be aFRaid to call a spade a spade when dealing with them. And, when caught violating American laws, we'd best deal with them quickly and efficiently.