 |
Posted on 09/24/2016 8:21:57 AM PDT by wtd
You think that even though Islam is an evil ideology, it should be legal, because outlawing it would be against the First Amendment.
There are good ideas and bad ideas. A car with square wheels is a bad idea, and anyone who would like to drive it will find that out at their first attempt. It takes less than five minutes to figure it out, for those who believed that theoretically it should work and that it was worth to build it to convince themselves.
What if, on the restaurant menu, in the drinks section, they put, in addition to iced tea, sodas and fruit juices, a bolder option: Poison? Now we could discuss it and see if we all agree whether it’s a good or a bad idea to drink poison, or we could just try it, because we are free to try everything ourselves. Could you still be upset with the restaurant for selling poison if they warned you, and you drank it anyway?
Islam is poison. It is warning you what it is, and yet you accept the invitation?
There are bad ideas that will take longer than five minutes to show how bad they are: we can indeed not only talk about them every time ( which I strongly recommend), but additionally try them out (which isn’t necessary, in my opinion, if it has already been demonstrated how bad they are). But is using your fragile body, instead of your stronger, more resilient mind (an idea can upset you, but won’t kill your mind) a really good idea?
There’s confusion between discussing Islam (which should be allowed and encouraged), and letting Islam be Islam and do what it does. There’s confusion between theory and practice, between speech and action. There are several problems related to that second thing, action: we already have laws that forbid what Islam does; so we don’t have to forbid it separately. Oh, no? This is very contradictory:
You let them build mosques, worship, wear unhealthy — and in many ways dangerous — clothing (no peripheral vision when driving, and who is hiding beneath that burka or niqab?), segregate boys from girls, practice FGM, marry prepubescent girls, rape little boys, and so on. Do you say, “Stop”, or do you talk about it and wait until they feel so inadequate and ridiculous that they stop all that nonsense by themselves?
Have you seen that happen, ever?
How do you explain to kids who are told one thing at home and another one at school? (about stealing for example? or about violence towards females?) We already see it everyday in schools all over the Western world. But we wait until someone gets hurt, and then we are surprised.
The problem with tolerating Islam in the name of the free speech and democracy is as follows: Can you legalize an ideology that forbids free speech (or that uses frees speech to spread one of its messages, the lying one) wherever and whenever it sets foot, and which is telling you up front that it will gain power using democracy and then discard it? (The democracy, that is, not power.)
We all know an ideology like that, and it was called Nazism. It promised to take away freedoms and commit genocide, and it delivered. Today it’s forbidden in many European countries, but what do they know? They should let someone start a Nazi party again, in the name of free speech and democracy and see whether it gets ridiculed and has no followers and it then doesn’t build camps and it doesn’t pull people out of their beds in the middle of the night and shoot thousands of them, somewhere in the woods of Katyn where no one can find them, without due process or….
…Wait, that’s communism and it’s still legal.
So some European countries forbid Nazi parties, but actively inform their citizens about the dangers of letting Nazis organize and act again. I really insist on the difference between freedom of speech, which I am fully behind, and freedom of action (a.k.a. anarchy, because that’s what you get when all is permitted), because I believe in the prevention of crime.
Communism never had its Nuremberg process. Its crimes never stood trial before the world, one that would have condemned it as an ideology and sentenced its adherents to death or prison, depending on their zeal in making everyone “equal” and “happy”.
Islam never had its day in court either. And it should.
Look how much energy it takes (and I think it should be done, no matter how much more it might take in the future), to inform kids in schools and the general public, about horrors of Nazism. It is an ongoing work, it can never be finished once and for all, because new children are being born, and the grownups also need to be constantly reminded how bad Nazism was.
If this treatment is also to be prescribed for Islam, I’m all for it, but remember: Muslims don’t care about ridicule. While a wannabe Nazi party member might care about what you think about him and not join the party because of people’s disapproval, a Muslim is not looking for your approval. He is looking for Allah’s approval, and with that your soft, Western ostracism simply cannot compete. Just like Allah himself, Muslims only understand power and violence and they don’t really care if their neighbors, at the lemonade stand, smile at them and say ‘Hi’. All right — they WILL sue for discrimination, but NOT because their feelings were hurt, but because they want to subdue you, their neighbors, as the infidels you are.
The trap we’re all falling into, and what differentiates Islam from Nazism, is the fact that Islam wants to be called a religion. And all religion is sacred in America. Religion, just like Caesar’s wife — in ancient Rome — must be above suspicion. Religion cannot be bad? They are all the same?
There was once an America without pesky Europeans and their Western values: pre-Columbian America. Its happy and sorrow-free inhabitants enjoyed lots of free activities, such as waging wars, enslaving other sorrow-free inhabitants and practicing their religions. Those three activities were inseparable for Aztecs, for example, who attacked their neighbors in order to capture some of them and then sacrifice them to their gods. You know, all those pre-Columbian cutting-edge (pun intended) open heart surgeries — performed on a conscious “patient” — with a stone knife? Or skinning alive, such a culturally enriching practice, especially for the neighbors, who were being enriched, skinned alive and had their beating hearts cut out of their chests. There were also sacrifices through immolation, beheading, starvation, drowning and bludgeoning. Some gods required cannibalism.
Or take ancient Egypt, where, as we saw in some royal graves, the servants were killed after the funeral and left in the grave, in the funeral chamber, so they would serve their master through all eternity. Lovely system of beliefs, a.k.a. religion. But it’s OK, it was only during First Dynasty, no big deal…
Did you know that in Sparta, in ancient Greece, young boys were lashed in front of the statue of Athena until their blood covered the marble? But, yeah, all religions are the same, all are good and all have the same message and identical moral values, so let’s try them all out.
Now imagine, that some Mexicans want to go back to the beliefs of their ancestors. Of course we would allow it. It’s a religion. Or rich Egyptians who have their servants put inside their graves, for the afterlife. Or Greek immigrants going back to their roots (that’s called radical, from Latin radix, root) and revive the old flogging custom. We might talk about it while watching; it would be very culturally enriching.
But yes, do that, talk about it and then, against all common sense, let them build their temples and practice what they are preaching. Why believe them, when they say they need human sacrifice? No, we absolutely need to see it for ourselves, in every coming generation, until we are all dead or converted to that cult. Until there is no more free speech and freedom and choice and tolerance and coexistence.
Religion cannot be bad? They are all the same?
Of course it can be bad, because religions, like all other ideas, can be good or bad. They should be scrutinized, but they don’t need to be tried out after the scrutiny. People should be warned about bad ideas, by all means, but not forced to experience them, if someone has done so already. I don’t have to find out every morning how to bake bread, thank God; somebody did it for me. I can, if I want to, try and improve the recipe, or invent a new one, but I don’t have to, if it’s not my cup of tea.
To exit the 20th floor of a high rise building, one can use stairs or an elevator, or simply jump out of the window. We can always discuss the merits of each solution, but do we really have to try out all three of them, to see which one is the best?
On 9/11/2001 people were left with only one solution in order to escape the burning Twin Towers: they had to jump to their deaths. Islam made them. Islam really leaves you with only one solution: death. And it takes away the alternatives: stairs and elevators.
Too many people experienced Islam and paid for it with their lives for us to happily let others try it out again and again and again. It is not only dangerous for new generations, it is above all disrespectful of all the victims of Islam, in all fourteen centuries, who — if we don’t learn the lesson and forbid Islam, and warn everyone about it, if we ignore their sacrifice — died for nothing.
|
Incoherent
“A car with square wheels is a bad idea”
Canada would disagree
ISLAM is NOT primarily a religion.
Only a simple-minded dunderhead still thinks that izzlam is just a religion. It is a violent world-expansionist ideology cleverly disguised as a religion.
sargon wrote: "Incoherent"
Care to expand on that thought?
BFLR
You can’t ban ideas.
sargon wrote: "Incoherent. You can’t ban ideas."
Au contraire...there are ways just as one cannot falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre...neither can one claim Islam is a "religion" when it is a complete body politic as well as Islam is and has proven over 14 centuries to be anything BUT peaceful.
Someone will make an improvement on square wheels.
They will make triangle wheels. It eliminates one bump.
There was a whole body of law that explained why we could outlaw communism and communists without violating the First amendment. That reasoning would apply equally to islamunism.
Allowing the federal government broad authority to declare professed religions as ‘not actually religions’ is about the stupidest way I can think of to handle Islam.
I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the people behind Gates of Vienna are Europeans. If they were more familiar with our government, the steady erosion of constitutional rights via judicial activism and the hostility of the elites to the Christian faith, they’d know that 99 times out of 100, any such power would be used against Christians, not Muslims.
The Constitution is in a sorry state as it is. Conservatism is about shoring up what’s left of it, maybe restoring it as far as we can to its original state (hope springs eternal). I leave poking holes in the Constitution to expand state power to the other side.
Liberals only care about rights and laws when they can use them for cover for their morally bankrupt and idiotic ideas. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
No, but you can certainly drop a hammer on people who attempt to spread them.
I believe that section "Congress shall make no laws respecting and establishment of religion" is very badly misinterpreted and misunderstood.
It does not make all religions "equal" in the eyes of the law, it simply precludes the Federal Government from doing what the states had done routinely in that era; Establishing State Religions.
State Religions were accepted in 1787, and it was precisely because they were that the Federal Government needed to stay out of the established religion business. You see, the various official state religions then in existence were differing denominations of Christianity, and there was no good reason for the Coalition government of diverse Christian states to wade into denominational differences at the Federal level.
It was simply accepted as a given that the Federal Government would be non-denominational Christian.
People don't notice, but the Constitution specifically exempts the President from working on Sunday, and it also acknowledges Jesus Christ as "Our Lord" at the end of the main body of the document.
The Constitution isn't religiously neutral, it is biased toward's Christianity. It's just neutral in regards to variations on Christian Doctrine.
Islam was never meant to be accommodated.
Sophomoric nonsense
Besides, the idea is not the problem - the practice is the problem.
Just like pedophilia - we can't ban pedophiles from having their ideas, but we can hunt the bastards down and exterminate them for acting on those ideas.
Islam should be banned. It is the opposite of civilization.
Good luck with all that fantasy.
The rest of us will just have to try to keep functioning in the real world...
Vote Trump!
Bttt.
5.56mm
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.