Won't someone think of the children.
Posted on 06/19/2002 7:38:48 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:20:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
They're calling for our destruction.
Friday prayers routinely excrociate all non muslims and advocate the imposition of islam on the USA. Sheikh Rahman, the blind cleric preached from a mosque in Jersey. How much evidence do we need that they're out to get us?
So they claim. There are many Islamic scholars out there who say that Al-Qaeda is guilty of the worst form of heresy.
Subordinate? I don't know.
That has got to be the worst copout I've ever seen on FR. Only a weasel on the scale of Jerry Nadler would offer up something like that.
That is until the government agents start calling it a "Compound" then stand back.
Every American convert to evangelical Christianity or Catholicism ends up being involved with a church. Some end up shooting abortionists. Can we afford the risk of letting these ideologies flourish here?
Indeed. And the problem with new mosques is, if they build it, they will come. Basically, there goes the Murfreesboro 'hood.
It's absolutely chilling to imagine what America will look like in 20 years -- at least, what's left of it then.
Regardless of me being a weasel, the true weasel words are to be found in those muslims who refuse to unequivocally condemn their jihadi brethren.
Salaam Aleikum from the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi America.
Equating Christianity to Islam is the easiest, slimiest tarring brush you can wave around.
So this justifies preventing Muslims in Tennessee from building a mosque? It justifies removing First Amendment protections from an entire religion? Do you seriously maintain that every Muslim in every mosque is a seditious threat?
The United States did not attempt to forcibly prevent Americans from adopting the ideologies of either fascism or Communism. We have had more than a comforting share of both American fascists and American Communists. We emerged victorious in both of the preceding struggles against totalitarianism; we did so by remaining true to the principles of liberty, not by adopting authoritarian measures. What exactly is it about the totalitarian threat of militant Islam which convinces you that even more draconian tactics are necessary this time around?
It seems that your solution would weaken us, not strengthen us in this fight. Your approach would destroy our moral credibility.
Won't someone think of the children.
Communism was often compared to a religion. Now we have an ideology as totalitarian and sinister as either Nazism or Communism, masquerading as a religion, calling for our very destruction. Just because you view it primarily as a religion does not make it any less threatening. Not every muslim is a jihadi, but unless we make it clear to all muslims that jihadism will not be tolerated, the moderate ones will never speak out as they are afraid of being killed if they go against their jihadi brethren.
Then hunt down the jihadis. Do it quickly, efficiently and effectively--but leave the non-jihadis free to practice their faith in peace.
What incentive do you give the moderates to speak out if you target the innocent along with the guilty? What makes you think they would willingly cooperate in the elimination of their entire faith on U.S. soil? And what sort of nation would we be if we were to take such action? We are not the thought police.
We have to make it clear that wahabi preaching will not be tolerated from the mosques; any kind of hateful preaching will not be tolerated. If they abide by that, then they are free to worship. But giving them the benefit of the doubt at this stage when all their religious scholars call for the destruction of America is unwise, to say the least.
If you don't want them around, just tell the local constabulary they're motorcyclists that like to ride Deal's Gap.
Advocating violent revolution has no First Amendment protection, regardless of your faith. If you want to send undercover FBI agents into the mosques, and then arrest any imam who foments violent overthrow of the governement, you're not likely to hear me complaining.
But you have to have an objective standard like "advocating violent revolution." Simply saying "hateful preaching" is too vague--it's way too easy for some liberal activist judge to apply the same vaugue standard to a Baptist preacher railing against the practice of homosexuality.
If you use an objective standard like the one above, then I'm not even opposed to shutting down entire mosques--if it can be demonstrated that they are primarily bases-of-power for revolutionary cells.
Peaceful mosques, however, and peaceful, law-abiding Muslims, are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as any other peaceful organizations and peaceful citizens.
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.