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.
Yea..and we are all racist male pigs as well. (/sarc)
bump
I don't see people ignoring it, we just don't believe it to be a suicide pact, nor do we see Islam as only a 'religion'. It should be banned for the fact that it is also a political machine dedicated to the replacement of the constitution with the Sharia. Just because something claims to be a religion, does not make it only a religion.
Words mean things, and the disagreement is whether Islam fits wholly within the meaning of the word 'religion' in the first amendment. It does not, IMO.
Sounds like are far more sane and sensible response than Islam's response to the cartoon.
The fact that Islam is as much a philosophy of governance as a religion is a crucial point that most of us in the West do not understand. Islam focuses as much on the temporal as on the spiritual and can not be viewed as only a belief system comparable to Christianity since the Reformation or to Judaism...the aggressive aspect of Islam will render it incompatible with the beliefs of others until it undergoes its own reformation.
Al Taqqia (The Lying) a møøslimb is allowed/required to lie to a nonbeliever if it will forward the goals of islam.
I disagree, as I have said before a strong augment can be made for islam being a threat to public safety and order.
There is no constitutional right to practice human sacrifice, and the same can be said for a cult that endorses murder of nonbelievers attacks and rapes of women going a Muslim area without burkas or veils ect,threatens riots when they don't get their way and demands total submission by the west to their fascist thinking, needs to be banned. Finding politicians and courts with the backbone to do so is another matter
Thank you. I agree. (BTW, The second part of my question relates to the US, and the Dar ul Harb in general.)
As sharia is a cornerstone of islam, we agree aspects of islam are already illegal and have to be restricted.
"Are you even in the USA?
"
Why, yes I am, thanks. So, tell me a single law in this country which did not pass through a lawmaking body. Our laws come about through the legislative process, as described in the US Constitution and the Constitutions of the various states.
In that picture, what exactly was created with islamic technology?
And so is cannibalism.
Thanks for responding....
Yes, you have many very good reasons for your feelings. And I'm very glad that you weren't one of the killed on 9/11.
Most of my experience has been here in this country, with individuals in work, hobby and social settings. And most of my experiences have been positive. In fact, a great deal of good has come into my life (and that of associates) via the ME, so yea, I do feel a tiny bit protective.
On the other hand, all of us, even those who are very 'pro' the people and some customs do see the Sharia law as the evil it is.
There is no doubt in my mind that I'm one of the first ones they would kill if they could. So I do agree is that change needs to happen. All I'm arguing against is emotion driven hate.
bttt
And which faction of Islam does not preach that conversion by force is allowed? Which factions do not preach the jihad towards the World-wide Caliphate is not a good thing?
"As sharia is a cornerstone of islam, we agree aspects of islam are already illegal and have to be restricted."
Insofar as Muslims break US laws, they should be prosecuted. We have no law here against some things, like the wearing of burkhas, so Muslim women may wear them if they wish. Most do not.
Tolerance under the Constitution should never extend to tolerating the expression of any belief, religious or otherwise, that has as its intention or effect the destruction of the Constitution.
Their 'religion' is worth less to them than an American Airlines plane is worth to the passengers?
"In that picture, what exactly was created with islamic technology?"
The same amount as was created with Christian technology. Technology is not really a religions thing.
NO!!!
So, tell me a single law in this country which did not pass through a lawmaking body.
Thou shalt not commit murder...Correct me if I'm wrong , I'm just a poor country boy.
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.