Posted on 08/18/2005 8:50:58 AM PDT by xzins
Prove that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
Prove that all Muslims advocate overthrowing our government and replacing it with a theocracy.
Do those, and I'll agree with you. But until then, we will have to agree to disagree on our ability to outlaw Islam and remove from it the protections that all other faiths enjoy in our nation.
On mandated bigotry: "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
On a double standard toward unbelievers: "Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
On mandated jihad: "O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth in the Cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. If you do not fight, he will punish you severely, and put others in your place." (Surah 9:38-39)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
On the nature of treaties: "If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 9:12)
Thus, to say that any Muslim is a "moderate" denies that they read and believe the above quotes. They could deny it to you and have no problem lying about it either.
Now, as to whether Islam is a theocratic system, you have only to note that the Caliphate ruled on both political and theocratic matters in unbroken succession from the death of Muhammed until 1923. All Sharia law really is stems from use of the Qur'an as a Constitution.
How many Muslims would admit to that?
So, you see, it doesn't matter if there are Muslims who are "moderate," because the book they worship states the more fundamentalist line in no uncertain terms. That means when push comes to shove, the fundamentalists rule and the "moderates" do their bidding or face the consequences.
As to "proof," you set yourself up as judge and jury. I don't give a hang if you don't avail yourself of common sources, such as the Qur'an itself (if you could stomach it).
If you're going to cherry-pick, there's plenty of things in the Bible that are anathema to our modern society, including the old punishments for some crimes. Stoning for adultery and all that.
If we were to judge Judaism solely on those few words, it would seem incompatible with our nation. But we don't. That would be silly. People don't take such things as literal proscriptions any more.
I do not disagree that fundies are the Muslim majority. But there are also moderates. I wish they would raise their voices sometimes, but there are moderates. It's not so black and white as you might like to believe.
It is possible for one to be a Muslim without automatically advocating the violent overthrow of the United States. Therefore the faith itself cannot be illegal, only certain practices within the faith, same as LDS.
We don't have to love it, but we cannot outlaw it. We cannot remove First Amendment protection of it just because we don't like it, which is what we were talking about in the first place.
That has NOTHING to do with the threat of Islam to America.
Strike one.
If we were to judge Judaism solely on those few words, it would seem incompatible with our nation. But we don't. That would be silly. People don't take such things as literal proscriptions any more.
Typical construction on a false premise.
Strike two.
I do not disagree that fundies are the Muslim majority. But there are also moderates. I wish they would raise their voices sometimes, but there are moderates. It's not so black and white as you might like to believe.
Whether or no, those who aren't fundies will fall in line on pain of death. They are supplying money and children.
It is possible for one to be a Muslim without automatically advocating the violent overthrow of the United States. Therefore the faith itself cannot be illegal, only certain practices within the faith, same as LDS.
I NEVER SAID THAT THE FAITH SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. False premise number two.
We don't have to love it, but we cannot outlaw it. We cannot remove First Amendment protection of it just because we don't like it, which is what we were talking about in the first place.
Get this through your thick skull: I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD OUTLAW ISLAM. I said we should enforce laws prohibiting sedition.
Without a straw man, you've got nothing.
Do you believe that a belief in Islam is sedition per se?
If not, then you and I are in no disagreement and I apologize for taking your time.
First of all, in an objective sense, Islam doesn't deserve First Amendment protection in that it is a fraudulent religion, which is now proven in the archaeological record. One source that can explain it to you is in that link I gave you that you didn't read. It's a whole book and is well sourced.
Second, deserving or not, I acknowledge that Islam HAS gained (not earned) protection under the First Amendment. The problem is what to do about it. I do not reccommend revocation of that protection as a means to deal with the threat.
Third, I was correcting you in that the First Amendment does not protect all religious practices. All I was pointing out to you is that Congress has the lawful power to revoke that protection. That is not the path I reccommend.
Fourth, Islam contains structural sedition in its text and is practiced as such by many if not most of its adherants. Some go about it peacefully, such as raising large families as a way to gain demographic power and there isn't much we should do about that, but don't think for a minute that they don't support eventual domination. It is a militant belief system.
Fifth, We do have laws against sedition. Advocating impostition of Sharia constitutes such as does recitiation of Surahs such as I posted.
Thus, the best way to manage the threat Islam poses in America is to prosecute sedition exactly, publicize the archaeological and historical record widely without apology, and let the Islamists figure out what to do about their religion. One thing is certain, one CANNOT trust any oath or repudiation an Islamist might offer. One has to judge them by their behavior.
So, do I advocate the defeat of Islam in America? Absolutely. It is an ideology, not a religion. It has no place in America. Do I advocate legally deligitimizing it as a religion? Not at this point. Although Congress has that power, it is a precedent empowering government in a manner I regard as dangerous and unnecessary at this point. If, upon prosecution for sedition, we get to open rebellion, such may become necessary.
Thank you for the clarification.
I would like to address one point in your last post: "in an objective sense, Islam doesn't deserve First Amendment protection in that it is a fraudulent religion, which is now proven in the archaeological record."
The "validity" of any religion is not material for First Amendment protection. Wicca is about as fabricated as one can get, but it's still a legitimate faith so far as the First goes. It meets the criteria for tax-exemption, it has chaplains in the Army, by every objective criteria the government uses it is a legitimate religion. So any archaeological record is really quite beside the point. It is a religion, in so far as the government has any power to decide.
Thanks for the discussion.
Upon what basis? The Universal Life Church? The Church of Euthanasia (no joke)? Who gets to decide what constitutes a religion? You will note that, by "admitting" religions as "official" we have quietly allowed government to define what constitutes "religion" on the basis of tax status! Thus, by conferring that power, we have allowed government to dilute the meaning of Free Exercise under the First Amendment.
There has to be some sort of federal determination (how else do we determine what types of chaplains to have in the army?)
I'm also uneasy about the tax-exempt status, but so long as we are not going to tax churches, the government needs to be able to define what's a religion and what's just a business wanting a tax exemption.
But yes, any church that can pass those basic tests is equally valid in the eyes of the state. That's the way it has to be.
Actually, not. It is the selective incorporation docrtine re the 14th Amendment that supposedly federalized that determination. If you consult the Tenth, the feds have no such power. IMHO, both the adoption of the 14th and the selective incorporation doctrine are unconstitutional.
I'll be coming out with an article on that topic tomorrow.
Interesting. I look forward to reading it.
How do you propose the Army decide which faiths it will have chaplains for?
The way the Constitution once had it, the States provided the organized militia. Under that framework, each unit would select chaplains pursuant to those state laws. It wouldn't be impossible to offer units on an overlapping borrow/lend basis to provide the necessary contiguity the current military demands.
the looney-lefties will go NUTS.
The military determines qualifications for officers who receive direct appointment because of membership in a profession.
They must be physically fit and capable, they must have a masters degree or equivalent, they must be able to pass a background check, etc.
The army decides on the basis of "best qualified." The best fit, the best educational background, the best background results....
They then permit any religious group to contact them and develop a relationship as an endorsing agency. The endorsing agency will endorse candidates to be chaplains in the military who meet the military's requirements above AND who are fully qualified to lead religious services for their particular brand of religion.
The military also knows the religions of the soldiers it has in the force. That information is taken as part of the processing of all soldiers. There is a concerted effort to take the best qualified candidates, but there is also a need to have available chaplains who are of the same faith group as the soldiers in the military.
For example, if there are 250,000 Catholics in the military and only 1 member of "The Church of the Distant Rising UFO," in the military, it is critical that the military have far more Catholic priests than CODR pastors...if they should have any.
To avoid questions of favoritism, the military has wisely chosen to focus on what its needs are and on who are the most able to endure the military demands.
I haven't availed myself of the history of how the military was Federalized from State militias or when (my guess it was after 1933), but it looks like it might be an interesting investigation.
There was a standing Federal Army at least prior to the Civil War....I remember stories of Robert E. Lee being assigned in different places. Once he was assigned as commander of a force to deal with John Brown who had raided Harper's Ferry.
The Congress early on established West Point to provide military officers to the standing Federal Army. That was pretty early, I think. Maybe as early as the 1820's.
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.