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.
What happens next is that we either get over the technicality of Islam allegedly being a religion and deal with it as it deserves to be dealt with, or, their unreformed and currently-in-the-hands-of-evil-people cult will nuke our civilization into submission.
It's also said about postal workers, serial killers, doctors, lawyers, drug dealers, cat killers, dog rapists, baby sitters, kidnappers, Michael Jackso (no, not him, nevermind)
Deal with it how?
"Isn't that essentially what the neighbors of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers said after the fact?
"
I don't know. What I do know is that no armed killers will come into my neighborhood unchallenged. It is not going to happen. That applies to gang members. That applies to racists. That applies to those who would kill someone for their religious beliefs.
I have some hard principles, and that's one of them. Had I lived in a place where the Klan came to burn someone's home or burn a cross on their lawn, I'd have been there, too, armed and ready to defend my neighbors.
I'm not alone, either. Some of us who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when we joined the military still take that oath seriously. Very seriously.
Hang in there and Git Er Done.
Bump and grind....
I know!
You remind him of Gypsy Rose Lee!
Just some humor. Sorry. The old Bump and Grind. I get a little punchy around the 500th post in a thread. [grin]
The you are willing to take up arms against Muslim in this country who preach the overthrow of the Constitution and its replacement with Sharia law?
No DUH? Hitler probably also said "This is good coffee", are you going to swear off coffee forever just because Hitler liked it?
And as far as assuming anything goes, why do you assume the constitution protects religion, when it hasn't done a very good job of it so far?
I'm not talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm addressing the thread's original hypothetical of "banning Islam" in the US. Sure, there may be a fine line between "ideological" war and actual, physical war. Any Muslim known to view Islam itself as warfare should obviously be watched closely. Very closely. No argument there.
Still, "misguided believer" is not the same as "aggressor." There have been no attacks on US soil after 9/11/01 NOT because we "banned Islam," but because we're vigilantly pursuing suspected terrorists and their supporters. There is no need to physically "take the battle" to non-combatants.
"The you are willing to take up arms against Muslim in this country who preach the overthrow of the Constitution and its replacement with Sharia law?"
LOL. I ain't no gypsy! I'm a lady I is!
MY cousin is sweet Georgia Brown. Is that close enough?
I think that is what a lot are debating.
I agree, we need to deal with them.
But we have hoping for the best on one end and
killing them all on the other.
"Voodoo is not allowed here". .....Sure it is. Go to Miami and look at the adherents of "Santeria" a form of "Voodoo". This is widespread in the Haitian "community" in South Fla. Also there are still remnants of Voodoo in Pre-Katrina NOLA.
Name one American beheaded on American soil by an American Muslim acting purely in the name of Islam.
Just one.
John Mohamud and his little sidekick...as well as Assan Ackbar with the 101st. They all went to the same mosque locaated in Baton Rouge, LA. That's 3 that came out of the islamic closet to create just a personal little jihad. Like A Duck In A Noose. Simply put, islam is a death cult. If you apologize for their criminal behavior, like an apologist of islam would, where does that place your intentions?
LOL... yeah, I can see that.. a few Aryan priests and the occasional Jew killing ceremony, and they could elevate the whole stinkin NAZI movement into a state "religion."
We need to resolve ourselves to do what is necessary to solve this problem - even if the only way to do it turns out to be "kill 'em all." Only then will we be in the position to convince to modify their behavior in such a way that we won't be forced to do so.
I hope there's a less bloody solution. But under no circumstances will I let my desire (and more broadly, the general desire among civilized people) for a less bloody solution become an enemy strategic advantage in his quest to kill or conquer us.
Despite your posturing, I suspect you are not willing to pay the price.
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.