..its become quite common
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.
I think he means Santeria. The cops here in New York are constantly uncovering hutches of animals used for ritual sacrifice in the Santeria rights.
No.
Carthage.
Voodoo, Santeria, Satanism, Scientology, Heavens Gate, BDSM etc are all allowed here. There isn't an 'illegal' religion. There are illegal behaviors, but no religion is against the law.
If they started killing people for working on Sabbath, YES!
You bet. The problem is that in Islam the Koran is the final word of god not open to interpretation. Judaism and Christianity went through a reformation. Became enlightened. As in, they figured out there are some 'dopey' things in the books (if taken literally), and decided to take a larger view of life.
The Mohammedan rabble has not gone through an reformation nor it can - 'cause the the dogma itself forbids it. Hence - this is a problem.
If this is indeed a fact, what evidence do you have that supports it ?
I'd be interested in seeing it.Otherwise, I'm afraid your "fact" is mostly wishful thinking.
Besides, most Germans weren't rabid Nazis either, and it didn't make a whole lot of difference.
Plus if we do ban Islam what next? Remeber what goes around comes around..
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.
"I think he means Santeria. The cops here in New York are constantly uncovering hutches of animals used for ritual sacrifice in the Santeria rights.
"
Santeria is also a religion that flourishes in some neighborhoods. Laws prohibiting their use of animal sacrifices have been thrown out several times in our courts.
Santeria is not illegal. If it were, you would not find all the Santeria shops in our cities.
They sacrifice animals in some of their rituals. I sacrifice animals on hunting trips. I eat them, too.
The only government solution I see is denying visas from muslim countries. That should be perfectly legal. The government could also turn a blind eye to the actions of steely citizens in response to muslim outrages. After all, they shirk certain other vital responsibilies, like border control...
..its become quite common
Islam is not a religion (which is our first mistake -- referring to it as one). It is, simply, a systematic control over every aspect of a follower's life, from how he handles his finances to how and whom (and how many times) he marries.
It is a system that would have made the KGB green with envy.
Mohammed's masterstroke was in convincing people that his own persoanl preferences and ideology were somehow divinely inspired. Otherwise, Mo is merely the Middle East version of Norm from "Cheers" ('Wouldn't it be great if...'), only with ambition.
If the government insists on sacrificing American lives at the altar of political correctness, The People will take the law into their own hands. And in the end, it won't be innocent Americans who suffer; it will be Islam.
In my life, I've closed two books half-way through reading them, walked over to the garbage can and tossed them: Mein Kampf and The koran. Basically, I consider them the same book in different languages.
But I believe we are dealing with a cultural problem, not a religious one. islam is simply a catalyst for a morally reprehensible culture that would exist with or without the "religion" of islam.
So I have to say, no - it shouldn't be outlawed. Just watched. Very carefully.
And dealt with harshly and legally when its adherents step out of line.
"Just recently there was a voodoo drama queen caught smuggling a head in her suitcase in the U.S.. She was arrested for that ... ah, carrying around the decapitated human head , a maybe you have a point.
"
Indeed. She was not arrested for being a member of the voodoun religion. She was arrested for a law dealing with human skulls. Big difference.
We prosecute people for their actions, not for their beliefs.
The issue is Nazism was
a. Rather contained.
b. Political (with some 'religious' overtures)
c. Very young.
Islam is a religion. We can kvetch about it all day long, but it is a religion just like lots of other wacky ones out there.
It's either all or nothing.
And yes, since I don't have a 'formal' religion, I'm one of those chewing my nails when some folks start yelling banning or forced conversion.
The article of this thread tries to analogize Islam to the KKK, but I don't think that's a good analogy: the KKK may have claimed to be religious, but they didn't claim to be a religion — rather each KKK member was a member of another religion and they all shared a Christian (used loosely) belief.
I think your analysis is closer to the truth: Islam is as much a form of government as it is a religion. The first amendment would not protect the governmental part (just as you see Ontario prohibiting sharia while permitting Islam).
Assume some religion that had a practice of sacrificing virgins but was otherwise law-abiding; under the first amendment, they would be free to continue, as long as they gave up the illegal part.
We might be able to outlaw the non-religious parts of Islam (e.g., sharia, jihad, murderous fatwas, and the like), while observing the first amendment protection for the religious part. Those Muslims who could not abide by such restrictions would be free to leave, just as the virgin sacrificers could leave if they didn't like having to live by our laws.
Any organization that wants to rule the world is a political organization. We (defacto) outlawed the CPUSA because they advocated the overthrow of our government and we should do the same with the Muslims ... unless the so-called moderates come out from their hidey-holes and fight for their religion.
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.