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.
""We don't ban bank robbers, but we do make the actual robbing of banks a crime."
And we don't ban Wahhabi mullahs who might preach the killing of infidels, we just ban the preaching itself. "
Bank robbers rob banks. If they did not, they would not be bank robbers. So we arrest them, try them, and convict them.
Wahhabi mullahs who preach the killing of infidels in this country can be arrested, tried, and convicted as well. Islam continues without them.
We try people, not ideas.
Good example. The way the KKK was taken down was by being made fun of... it became an embarrassment to be associated with such a lame organization.
A radio show was involved - they got the Klan buzzwords and mocked them as idiots.
That's the answer. Radical Muslims need to be marginalized. Not feared, not taken directly on, but laughed at... Like the Klan, Radical Muslims use the same macho honor, chip on the shoulder, control freak approach to life. Laughing at them hits them in their weak spot... They love a fight - it's why they recruit in prisons. They love the battle and death. Taking them straight on is feeding the sickness...
Cartoons, mocking the more idiotic ways, and plain laughter will drive the radicals out...
We certainly do so for new immigrants. And we do so for the military and sensitive government jobs.
Are you implying that native born Muslims are all loyal to the constitution? Or that they get a pass on treason? Or are you assuming the whole idea of treason is passe?
"One stupid Muslim does not justify banning a religion. The crazies win if that happens. It's hard to separate the good from bad, but it's the right course. "
On that explains my error. All this crap over 40 years has been caused by one lone stupid mudslime. Sorry I guess the others are all nice people who mean us no harm and will be more than happy to protest in the streets against this one lone maggot.
Taking my comments out of context only highlights the faulty generalization of your comments. We don't have to abandon our cherished constitutional beliefs to combat Islamic terrorism. It's harder, but it's right to encourage moderation while killing the crazies. It will work, unlike suppressive, Big-Brother tactics as you support.
My personal experiences:
I was in the US Navy during the First Gulf War. My carrier launched thousands of sorties against the Iraqis during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. When the war was "officially" ended (after a mere 100 hours because the Army ran out of gas, not because we had killed enough Iraqis or because the Saudi's stopped us), and we were permitted some well-deserved shore leave, many of our Arab "coalition" partners invited us ashore.
What you would see as far as representative of Islamic life and the influence of the religiously-sposored-police state in everyday life, even in a more "civilized" setting such as Qatar or Saudi Arabia, would make even the most disaffected, anti-war American puke. People who haven't been there don't know what goes on there.
These are not civilized human beings. They are Huns. Huns with BMW's and pretenses to modernity, to be sure, but HUNS nontheless.
My second "close-up-and-personal" experience with Islam was the day I managed to escape 1 World Trade Center in my native New York City, which the "Religion of Peace" says had to be knocked down to demonstrate the consequences of our sins.
I wonder what those sins are? Were they all those bodies we left in Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq while we were freeing Arabs from Nazi-like, torture-based, Police-states of their own making?
Or was it all the dead Serbian Christians we left behind in an effort to defend Bosnian Muslims from a systematic government-sponsored course of genocide?
Perhaps it was when we had the sheer AUDACITY to attempt to feed all those hungry, disease-riddled Somalis?
I've encountered quite a bit more to hate about Islam as I finished up my master's in history. I'm finding even more to disgust me as I finish up my PhD. For continued nausea, I just turn on the televsion and watch millions of people to whom a an original thought and a cold drink of water are BOTH froeign concepts, demand "rights" and "respect", delivered with death threats, and without having a notion of what either word means.
Or of having a sense of irony that they demand what they themselves are unwilling to give.
The War on Terror is not, and should never have been, presented as an ideological war in which religion plays no part. It is a battle for the very life and soul of Western Civilization. The "other side" is armed with an ideology-cum-religion, which is inimical in every way to the established pillars of western society, and which is their only effective weapon. They must be disarmed. The "other side" has already made it quite clear that they will respect no civilized rules of conduct, nor spare any target. Why should we?
*sigh* Shortly after 9/11 a Berkeley mom was overheard telling her young daughter not to worry, they wouldn't attack here because the people in Berkeley were their allies...
Wonder how much of Our Tax Money helped in just the construction in this photo?
God will know his own...
"Ok..my point is you can ban or make illegal the past activities of the Klan but not the religion they stood for.
"
Precisely. The Klan believes that blacks are subhuman and should be removed from this country, not allowed to marry outside their race, and not given the same freedoms real humans have. They have similar beliefs about Jews.
They can believe these things all they like. They can publish their hateful ideas, and they do. What they cannot do, with impunity, is break laws and violate the rights of US Citizens. If they do that, they go to prison.
But, hey, if they want to wear sheets and pointy hats and march around carrying signs, let 'em. These days, they have to have police protection when they do that. Ridicule has reduced the KKK to a cluster of buffoons today.
Sometimes a Monica Plug is just a ceeeegar...
Making Islam illegal is Un-Constitutional, and just a bad idea.
"However -- U.S. Immigration policy could bar any new entrants from Islamic countries, helping to slow its growth and provide security. In addition -- a sustained U.S. plan to repopulate itself by encouraging births through tax incentives and other perks would also go a long way to providing our own security -- both economically and ideologically."
Good points. We should ban all new Mooslim immigration. We should also encourage Americans to have more babies. And, to add a new point, we should deport and permanently ban Mooslims who are unwilling to publicly denounce radical Islamists who commit or threaten to commit violent acts.
The operative word is "were."
Just one.
Give them time...
I didn't realize people in Berkeley were that naive. (/sarc)
I'm not denying it's a difficult problem. I guess the good ones will be seen through their actions. Start a reformation movement. Come out on TV and say good things.
These days, they have to have police protection when they do that. Ridicule has reduced the KKK to a cluster of buffoons today.
The K doesn't need Police protection..The Klan you see doesn't represent the Klan that is.
"Are you implying that native born Muslims are all loyal to the constitution? Or that they get a pass on treason? Or are you assuming the whole idea of treason is passe?"
No, to all your questions. However, native born Muslims are not required to take loyalty oaths or any other kind of oath, unless they take a federal job or join the military or government.
Do they get a pass on treason? Of course not. Nobody gets a pass on treason. But...when was the last trial of someone for treason? Do you know? Is treason passe? Nope, but it is very strictly defined in our Constitution. Indeed, it is the only criminal law in the Constitution. Have you read the definition of treason? Do it, and you'll see why it is rarely used to charge anyone.
Treason is a word bandied about here on FR a lot. Few who use it actually understand what is required for treason to be prosecuted.
Bump
Cartoons, mocking the more idiotic ways, and plain laughter will drive the radicals out...
I think you are absolutely correct. Remember the two quotes that C.S. Lewis put at the front of The Screwtape Letters...
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn." ...Luther"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked." ...Thomas More
I think that was the real energy behind the cartoon uproar.
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.