I haven't even hinted at such a thing, nor do I advocate that, so please refrain from engaging in coy slander by association -- it's a cheap trick.
Now to the topics at hand: I would most certainly agree that any Muslim, be he a layman or cleric who calls for an American caliphate or preaches jihad, who urges his followers to choose the Koran over the Constitution; who urges his co-religionists to commit acts of violence and sabotage against Americans or American interests; who works to supplant our system of laws with sharia-compliant ones -- should be arrested and prosecuted and if he is a non-US citizen, immediately deported. I would consider such actions those of a reasonable people intent on the preservation of their values, their culture and their nation.
Because such arguments are as weak as the arguments that seek to examine the components of Christianity or Western civilization that have fueled plenty of nasty historical events, as well. . .
No, such arguments are entirely valid, since there has been no organized, worldwide, violent, genocidal, mass movement of Bible-thumping Christians for centuries. And if you characterize the Christian Crusaders as analogous to current-day Muslim jihadis, the last of the Crusaders died over a thousand years ago.
I'm not saying that there isn't nasty stuff in the Koran but that matters when we're talking about Wahhabists (who even enhance the bad stuff in their translations) but no so much if we're talking about Sufis.
True, but for practical purposes when we talk about Islam as a political force -- which today it clearly is -- we are speaking of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, who together comprise around 95% of the world's Muslims. Sunis and Bahais are a tiny minority of Muslims and they're usually mocked, persecuted or ignored by the two dominant sects. So what's your point?
Even Ann Coulter exhibited more compassion toward Muslims when she suggested killing their leaders and forcibly converting them to Christianity than some people are expressing in this thread.
Coulter's tongue-in-cheek, but she does have a point which I'll illustrate via a personal anectdote: When I was in Iraq, I worked with a crew of Iraqi engineers who were all decent, brave men. We'd often have discussions similar to this one. One evening, in the course of conversation ( as rockets thumped in around us) I asked these guys how much power their clerics had. One of the guys then told a story that drove home a pivotal point. He said that one week there had been a story making the rounds on the news channels about how the burned and blackened spots on the Iraqi bread were bad for one's health. After the story aired, people overwhelmingly ignored the warnings. That Friday during mosque, a number of the clerics made the same point to their flocks. Immediately, people started taking issue with bread that had burn spots on it -- no one would eat the stuff.
After he'd made his point, I asked the same guy this question: "If clerics across Iraq told their flocks next Friday to stop killing each other -- to stop the bombings, the rockets, the beheadings, would they stop?" Without hesitation, he said, "Immediately." Every other Iraqi in the room agreed.
Of course the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is that we probably wouldn't even be having any of these discussions if it weren't for oil and oil money.
I think we would be having this conversation. Here's why: To non- Muslim Westerners, maintaining a Middle East presence is mainly about oil and maintaining access to a few geographically strategic areas. But to most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth -- and a significant number of them are willing to do that through the sword. And a more significant number of them are in agreement with that approach, even if they themselves would never commit a violent act in the name of Islam. In a nutshell, they don't want us here not because they think we're stealing their oil, but because we aren't Muslims and as such we represent a threat to their deep-held religious/societal beliefs and practices. You cannot begin to understand the depth of truth in my statement, "To most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth," unless you've spent significant time in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslims from the Gulf, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. I don't say that to slight your opinions, but in retrospect it has taken me years of such immersion to lose my illusions, so to speak.
It's about religion as powerful, addictive ideology.
As a wayward Christian, I could not fathom the incredible depth of religiosity among Muslims until I saw it first-hand, in Muslim lands. I have never seen anything comparable in the West.
My comments in this thread were initially directed at the people calling for those things and that's been my problem all along. As I said repeatedly, I'm not demanding special treatment and on the other side of this, I fully support the right of people to create and publish cartoons, books, and movies critical of the Koran and Islam. The First Amendment protects both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Both are important.
Now to the topics at hand: I would most certainly agree that any Muslim, be he a layman or cleric who calls for an American caliphate or preaches jihad, who urges his followers to choose the Koran over the Constitution; who urges his co-religionists to commit acts of violence and sabotage against Americans or American interests; who works to supplant our system of laws with sharia-compliant ones -- should be arrested and prosecuted and if he is a non-US citizen, immediately deported. I would consider such actions those of a reasonable people intent on the preservation of their values, their culture and their nation.
I'm with you on people urging acts of violence and sabotage. And while I understand your point about choosing the Koran over the Constitution or supplanting our system of laws, I find myself wondering how many Christians would put the Bible before the Constitution and how many people in this thread are putting their own fears and safety before the Constitution and how many people tread the Constitution in a smorgasbord way, much as they treat their religion, only accepting the bits that they like? If that's a crime, then we'll be deporting and imprisoning a whole lot of people. While I understand the desire to squash sedition, it's always been difficult to balance that against the freedoms of speech and association in the Constitution.
As for supplanting our system of laws with Sharia-compliant ones, that would require a Constitutional amendment since that pesky First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, which Sharia most certainly would be. If Muslims have the numbers to pass a Constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of a state religion, the United States would already be lost, and in the meantime, I consider demanding Sharia being implemented as law a good way to weed the radicals out from the non-radicals.
I'd rather see a more aggressive insistence that Muslims respect freedom of speech and religion, even in majority Muslim nations, but that's not going to happen until their oil is no longer something we need.
No, such arguments are entirely valid, since there has been no organized, worldwide, violent, genocidal, mass movement of Bible-thumping Christians for centuries. And if you characterize the Christian Crusaders as analogous to current-day Muslim jihadis, the last of the Crusaders died over a thousand years ago.
And there are periods where Muslims have been relatively peaceful and places where they do live side-by-side even with Hindus. It's a matter of whether we want to talk about clear and present danger or potential danger. Some in this thread have argued that all Muslims are a potential danger. By that standard, everyone is a potential danger and that's exactly the argument liberals use against guns, Christianity, right-wing ideas and so on. If it's fair to argue that a peaceful Muslim who has broken no laws and advocated no harm to others is inherently dangerous by virtue of being a Muslim because other Muslims have done horrible things, then it's valid to argue that every gun is a potential murder, every Christian is a potential Crusader or Conquistador, every anti-government right-winger is a potential Timothy McVeigh.
How do we know who is a good guy and who is a bad guy? We look at what they say and how they behave and if they've actually committed a crime or are seriously planning or encouraging a crime, then act against them. We don't convict people on statistical potential. And, yes, a terrorist might slip through the cracks but bad guys slip through the cracks of your legal system, too. Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, slipped through the cracks for years. So have numerous other serial killers and bad people. Some guilty people even get off the hook. But that's a price we pay to avoid abusing the innocent. Either we're serious about justice or we're a society where the ends justify the means.
True, but for practical purposes when we talk about Islam as a political force -- which today it clearly is -- we are speaking of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, who together comprise around 95% of the world's Muslims. Sunis and Bahais are a tiny minority of Muslims and they're usually mocked, persecuted or ignored by the two dominant sects. So what's your point?
My point is that we shouldn't also mock and persecute the Sufis and Bahais and other non-radical Muslims who can coexist peacefully with others and treat them like criminals if they aren't. What happens when you have no friends is you gravitate toward the people you fit in with best. That dynamic is how black radical and white supremacist gangs in prison recruit. They abuse the people who don't hate anyone and drive them into the arms of the radicals of their own race who offer to be their friend. In the case of moderate Muslims, that means driving them toward the radical Muslims. That's not touchy-feely liberal nonsense. Examples of that dynamic abound.
Coulter's tongue-in-cheek, but she does have a point which I'll illustrate via a personal anectdote:
I'm serious when I said that I think Coulter showed compassion. Although she said it bluntly, what she was talking about was saving Muslims from their religion, and she suggested a way to do it that doesn't involve killing them all and let God sort them out.
When I was in Iraq, I worked with a crew of Iraqi engineers who were all decent, brave men. We'd often have discussions similar to this one. One evening, in the course of conversation ( as rockets thumped in around us) I asked these guys how much power their clerics had. One of the guys then told a story that drove home a pivotal point. He said that one week there had been a story making the rounds on the news channels about how the burned and blackened spots on the Iraqi bread were bad for one's health. After the story aired, people overwhelmingly ignored the warnings. That Friday during mosque, a number of the clerics made the same point to their flocks. Immediately, people started taking issue with bread that had burn spots on it -- no one would eat the stuff.
Interesting. That explains why they keep blowing up moderate and pro-American clerics, too.
After he'd made his point, I asked the same guy this question: "If clerics across Iraq told their flocks next Friday to stop killing each other -- to stop the bombings, the rockets, the beheadings, would they stop?" Without hesitation, he said, "Immediately." Every other Iraqi in the room agreed.
Then that suggests that the way to fix the problem isn't to persecute and kill the common Muslim but to deal with the radical clerics, correct?
I think we would be having this conversation. Here's why: To non- Muslim Westerners, maintaining a Middle East presence is mainly about oil and maintaining access to a few geographically strategic areas. But to most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth -- and a significant number of them are willing to do that through the sword. And a more significant number of them are in agreement with that approach, even if they themselves would never commit a violent act in the name of Islam.
Yes, but if we didn't need them, we wouldn't have to be so worried about offending them.
In a nutshell, they don't want us here not because they think we're stealing their oil, but because we aren't Muslims and as such we represent a threat to their deep-held religious/societal beliefs and practices.
Absolutely, and I think they fear that for a reason. It's why, earlier in this thread, I said the answer wasn't walling them up but engaging them and spreading other ideas. There is a reason they get their wives from their native countries instead of where they live. There is a reason they live in enclaves. That's exactly why cult-like religions behave the way they do. You can break the spell by exposing them to questions and other ideas.
You cannot begin to understand the depth of truth in my statement, "To most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth," unless you've spent significant time in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslims from the Gulf, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. I don't say that to slight your opinions, but in retrospect it has taken me years of such immersion to lose my illusions, so to speak. It's about religion as powerful, addictive ideology.
I believe you, but I also know that large numbers of Christians also support spreading their religion until it blankets the entire world. That's why Christians "witness" and have missionaries in Africa and Asia and South America and why Christian missionaries have been risking their lives to proselytize Christianity in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations and in India, much to the annoyance of both Hindu and Muslim leaders there. The Gideons put Bibles in hotel rooms and hand them out to people for free to spread the word. Heck, a friend who attended a religious college told me of Christians going to synagogue services in order to proselytize to the Jews attending service there. The Jews for Jesus also specifically target Jews, much to their annoyance. And there are plenty of claims about overly aggressive missionaries and even domestic charities pushing religion on people as a condition for help. Maybe you don't notice it if you are essentially Christian but I have plenty of non-Christian friends and they do notice it.
Further, the Mormon Church has a massive missionary machine in place and sends hoards of young Mormons out on missionary assignments. The Mormons run commercials, offer free books of Mormon, and then try to visit people with missionaries to try to convert them. I've done it out of curiosity. The Mormons have also created quite a bit of controversy by doing posthumous proxy baptisms of non-Mormons to save them, including Jews who died during the Holocaust.
It doesn't surprise me that people of any religion might want to spread their faith and to see the whole world get on board (including militant atheists). That's not inherently wrong or evil unless they seek to convert people by deception, coercion, or force. How many of those Muslims want to spread Islam by the sword? Yes, I think they are wrong and would like to see a Christian world but the Constitution protects the free practice of religion for a reason.
As a wayward Christian, I could not fathom the incredible depth of religiosity among Muslims until I saw it first-hand, in Muslim lands. I have never seen anything comparable in the West.
I have. You mean you've never been visited by a Jehovah's Witness in the United States? Heck, I got visited by them when I was living in Japan. I also met an American college student in Japan who was essentially run through a forced baptism by a Japanese Christian group that wouldn't take know for an answer (very unusual for the Japanese). And that's why I'm asking people for the criteria by which they'd sort out Muslims without catching a lot of Christians or Mormons or people of other faiths, too. So far, I haven't gotten a definition that didn't specify the Muslim faith meaning that they want to target Muslims because they are Muslim rather than on the basis of a particularly offensive practice.