Posted on 02/20/2006 7:46:11 AM PST by Dark Skies
When President Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech he went out of his way to make the world understand that it isn't a war with Islam itself that we were joining — and I say joining because the war had been started by the Jihadists decades before. And, in observance to our Western principles, that must be the correct way to view our conflagration with radical Islam.
Let's face facts, it certainly is uncomfortable to a Westerner who has been brought up on tolerance, freedom of religion, and liberty to contemplate a war against an entire religion. But are we approaching a time when Western nations won't have a choice but to target Islam itself in certain ways to keep their own people safe. The best course of action is to make public displays of Islam and certain of its practices illegal in Western nations.
So, the question becomes are we at that time now? Are we fast approaching a time when Mosques will be closed and banned? Have we come to a time when Islamic literature is turned away from our borders? Have the childish and dangerous reactions of Muslims to this cartoon in a Danish newspaper proven that Islam cannot be trusted to be a vital, peaceful, and law-abiding segment of society?
It is looking like yes is the answer to these queries.
We are already approaching this today. In Ontario they have officially outlawed Muslim Sharia law, that law that uses religious precepts to enforce moral and society codes of conduct. And Muslim "family councils" have been stopped where local community groups may supplement Canadian law with their local custom.
Several members of the John Howard administration in Australia have spoken out against Islamic clashes with Western notions of law and societal comportment many times over the last few years.
Recently Howard himself said, "I do think there is this particular complication because there is a fragment which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society, and that is a difficulty ... You can't find any equivalent in Italian, or Greek, or Lebanese, or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem."
Muslims routinely destroy property, threaten death and bodily harm to those who speak out against them, and they constantly fund terrorism throughout the world. In Syria they have burnt an embassy, in Europe Muslims have been responsible for murdering people who have written out against Islam or made movies, and other forms of art. These actions are also approved by Islamic teachers (Imams) and religious leaders, not just undertaken by warped loners claiming to represent Islam quite against the will of the majority or authority.
With this ridiculous cartoon issue, we have seen that Islam has no sense of perspective. In the west parody or satire is seen as not only common, but completely harmless for the most part. And religion is not immune to parody and satire, though even in the west most people are often uncomfortable with religious satire. Usually only people filled with hate attack religion in parody and most in the West instinctively know this. As a result, most people dismiss such parody as foolishness and bad taste.
But with Muslims overreacting — in western eyes at least — to this silly cartoon issue in the way they have, it becomes nearly impossible for Westerners to view Islam as a peaceful religion, but more as a vicious hate group itself. And that perception is justified with the actions that Muslims have increasingly perpetrated over the ensuing years. So, we find that Islam presents a danger to the safety of the populace all too often. It is violent, oppressive, and reactionary.
But, what is to be done about it? We have been raised to feel that religion should be left untouched by government. Freedom of religion is at the very core of our beliefs. And this concept is an important one to uphold. So, how can we honestly and without hypocrisy begin to look toward making Islam illegal?
There is a parallel of sorts in the USA that might be used as a template for action. The Ku klux Klan.
After the Civil War ended, the KKK arose from the ashes of war as an advocacy group for the disenfranchised white voter in the south. But it quickly became a terrorist organization bent on taking out revenge on the south's newly freed black population for having lost the war. It got so bad that even one of the original organizers, C.S. Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest, denounced the organization and quit it in disgust.
But as the late 1800s rolled on and the south began to re-enter the Union as full partners in government, the KKK began to lose steam and prominence. For a time it subsided. But as the 20th century neared, it re-emerged and this time became a nationwide and powerful force taking on the flavor of religious, civic and racial duty. The KKK became invested in government and claimed millions of members nation wide.
In the 1920s, however, it became too much for a liberty loving country to allow the KKK to any longer exist. In Indiana, the entire state government was scandalized by their fealty to Indiana's Klan leader who had raped and beaten his secretary on a train trip. Violence against and frequent lynching of southern blacks became so pervasive that Congress finally acted and banned the Klan. The organization collapsed never again to reclaim the power and prominence it once had.
Now, the KKK has always based its precepts on Christianity, as well as racial identity. It also reacted with violence, rallies, death threats and killing when it was threatened. It careened far away from being a mere "idea" or religious theology and became a terrorist organization. And it became a terrorist organization even though literally millions of Americans that belonged to or identified with the Klan were not themselves violent, evil, or dangerous citizens.
The leadership of the Klan supported violence. The leadership preached violence. The leadership planned and fomented it. Therefore, it had to go because it became a danger to every law-abiding citizen, whether they agreed with the racial and religious concepts the Klan espoused or not.
Islam has become the KKK of the 21st century. The sooner we awake to this truth and take steps to ban the religion, or somehow curtail its pernicious influence the better. The west is going to have to put sever restrictions on Islamic Mosques and public display of Islam. Further, devout Muslims should not be allowed to hold public office (though it certainly should not become a racial issue — sins of the father should not be visited upon the sons).
This is no religious purge as in centuries past. In the past religions were banned to be replaced by the state sponsored sect and believers of the banned religion were mistreated, tortured, unduly taxed, and terrorized. This is absolutely not the model the west would follow by banning aspects of Islam today. No religion is replacing Islam and no one is suggesting that Muslims be mistreated. But the creed to which they hold is fast becoming the most dangerous one in the world today. It is a fine line that we walk to consider banning Islam, but the safety of society is at risk not to do so.
This is not an easy conclusion at which to arrive. But if we continue to turn a blind eye to the danger that Islam presents to the west, we are signing our own death warrants.
The KKK was put down in the USA and made powerless for the same reason. Communism was destroyed for the same reason, as well. Islam is a danger to the world.
Unfortunately, it is just that simple.
"No, we can't deport native born citizens. But we don't need to. We don't even need to outlaw Islam, because treason is still a crime. "
It is indeed a crime. If treason is being committed, then prosecutions should take place. I have not seen a single treason charge relating to Islam. Have you?
Islam is not a religion. It is thought control on an extent that has Mao and Lenin slapping their palms to forehead (in the depths of Hell) and wondering why THEY didn't think of it.
Unfortunately, the only law recognized in Islam is Muslim law, the Sharia. The 'proper sphere' for Islam includes politics; I've not read of any disagreement on this among muslims.
If a religion does not recognize the same 'proper sphere' as you do, then what? How do you propose to convince the mullahs that they are outside their proper sphere? I doubt that even you and I agree on what the proper sphere for religion is, except that it unacceptable to blow things up to force my religion on you or vice versa.
Since Islam has a political stance, and it is in direct opposition to our way of politics, I see few options other than addressing it as a political movement and banning it as we would any other political movement dedicated to the overthrow of the constitution.
If this were a new age cult, where their method for overthrowing the current order was limited to group prayer, or suicide while waiting for the mother-ship, I'd give them a pass. They aren't, and they don't.
"Ever met an American-born Muslim? I know plenty, they're just as pro-America as the average Chistian guy. They understand and are VERY thankful that common law rules in the US, Islamic law is nuts. American-born Muslims are the ideal of what needs to happen in the rest of the world.
This is an individual responsibility issue, not a religious one."
Yes, I know a couple of native-born Muslims. They're fine citizens...the ones I know. One of them has some service medals from his time in the Army during Vietnam. He still prays five times a day.
You are correct. We punish actions, not religions.
not necessarily.
There is a legal school of thought that states you can not used the first amendment to eliminate the first amendment.
You can not use the freedoms of the nation to overthrow the nation.
Consider how a US visa application SPECIFICALLY asks if the applicant has EVER belonged to an organization which advocated the overthrow of the united states. An applicant can be denied a visa for advocating the overthrow of the US government. That is 100% in contrary to first amendment absolutists.
ISLAM advocates the overthrow of the USA's government an replacing it with a theocracy without the bill of rights or constitution. Just tribal mullahs dictating thought to a level 8 centuries ago.
Islam has by its own nature and scripture abdicated any first amendment rights.
Good post.
Islam is a death cult.
Ok, let me refraze that. Is it legal to advocate (violent) overthrow of the US government ? Is it legal to have an organization dedicated to the overthrow US government ?
Islam is a political party couched in religeous belief. Just like communism were. Commies worshipped the State. Islam worships Allah to the point that they would impose their rule on others. No difference. Just because Commies were 'atheists' in the traditional sense doesn't mean Communism isn't/wasn't a religeon. We took care of that one, we can take care of Islam (which, is *FAR* worse).
Look, I don't like it anymore than you do....but bottom line, it's a religion. Warped, weird, misogynistic...but still a religion to those who practice it.
The same mind control can be applied to many other groups (like Scientology or even the Amish if you think about it). Again, this is about the constitution and who decides what is what.
Bravo!!!!
Hm. Perhaps there is some hope around here after all.
It's an age old question - do we, as a tolerant society, ban people who use toleration to preach intolerance?
The standard should be thus - if a creed calls for violence and destruction, then absolutely - it's a similar standard to inciting a riot being a crime. Islam, with its call for jihad and beheading those who dare insult the prophet, crosses this line.
Regards, Ivan
Neither did I.
Nor in my worst nightmare did I Imagine I'd be one of them.
Until 9/11.
You might try coming up to present time.
Also re: your tag line, Calamari for all...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I don't know what is SO hard to figure out about this statement within the Constitution. I will oppose ANYONE who says that making ANY religion, no matter how much I disagree with it, illegal.
Sorry.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact and radical Islam is no more a religion than Communism or Naziism. When a religion becomes a front for an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Constitution and the United States, then it ceases to be a religion as defined in the first amendment.
These people have one deep religious belief, they believe that Allah wants them to kill you and me.
I have the evidence of personal experience with Muslims, I don't rely on what the media will report. I wish moderate Muslims would find a way to be heard, but they DO exist as a majority in the US.
Talk of banning their religion is exactly what the Islamic fanatics want to see. Only suckers still fight over religion - it's all about power.
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.