>"I presume it's Adams you are misquoting. Why not throw in a spurious Madison quote while you're at it?"<
If anyone desires to look up the quote, I can assure you they will find I was not far off the mark. In any event I did not claim to be exactly quoting his words, but rather citing the general intent of his remarks. If I quote, you will know it, and I never quote spuriously.
>"Yet, funny thing, Jefferson and the other Founders didn't suggest banning Islam in America."<
With an ocean between them, it likely did not strike them as necessary, but rather as a forgone conclusion that readers would understand if it ever became an issue.
>"unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."<
This is precisely the point; debate and free argument seem sorely lacking, as the dominant paradigm in the media and the political marketplace appears to insist to us that we accept Islamists at their word - virtually blindly with hands bound - despite reams of historical evidence, and both distant and recent precedent to suggest we should NOT TRUST them.
Tell you what, as soon as countries like Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, et al will allow other religions to build churches and practice their faith with freedom from persecution and prosecution, I'll consider the playing field to have been levelled significantly. Until then, I feel wholly justified in regarding them with a jaundiced eye because the simple fact is: wherever Islam is practiced without enforced limits or strictures, it becomes the predominant religion, to the detriment and destruction of all other religions. Islam empowered does not permit "free argument and debate"; it is not permitted to contradict the Imams, the mullahs, the greedy, murderous paedophile false prophet muhammad, or the false moon-rock god, alla-uzza/satan. To contradict them is to invite death and/or dismemberment
When ALL of Islam (and I mean ALL) begins to respect women rather than dominate, brutalise, enslave, objectify, and terrorise them as they have done for 1,381 years, then I will give it some more thought. Until then, neither I nor my neighbors should afford ourselves the luxury of being much more open-minded than we are right now.
>"And ask you to learn to read...try starting with Federalist X, for example. It's quite clear that the Constitution was created to prevent a mobocracy. Majority rights are also protected by it, but that would have been the case in a pure democracy anyway. And it protects against takeover by the majority or a minority"<
Spare us all your ill-founded attempts at analysis. The U.S. is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. We have always been a representative Republic. I grant that this is, by Greek standards, a form of a democracy - but a balance of power was presumptive in the design of the three branches of government. In every society where Islam could grow unchecked, and gain as much power as it has a will toward, they take over, or leave blood in the streets in the wake of trying. To contend otherwise is to willfully ignore the repeated lessons of 1,381 years of history, and insist that those lessons do not apply to us here and now, that things will be different this time, because this time we can take their word for things...really really really.
>"Misquotes and logical fallacies seem to be in your playbook, though. ;-)"<
I'll see your winking smiley face and raise you with a (repeated) request to cite any misquoted lines which I had presented as accurate full quotes. Logical fallacies? Hardly. Unless one considers it a fallacy that,"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
>"Bottom line: militant Islamists are a very strong threat to the US,<"
Try this bottom line instead: Islamists are a very strong threat to the US...because they are virtually indistinguishable from militant Islamists. This is owing to the fact that imams in their mosques tell them to live their daily lives among the "infidel" as if they are in a time of war behind enemy lines, therefore they have carte blanche to lie, cheat, dissemble, and tell the infidel anything they want, so long as their own minds are of a purpose to serve allah.
>"moreso if we give in to fear and weaken that which protects us most--our Constitutional committment, moral high ground, resolve, vigilance, etc. I agree with you that we must be vigilant, but we must STRENGTHEN our concept of citizenship, not weaken it!"<
We already have the moral high ground, and a very long way to go before we are in any danger of losing it. Vigilance is exactly what I am suggesting, along with resolve. "Strengthening our concept of citizenship" is bull-hockey, however. That sounds to me like a euphemistic way of suggesting that we do not already offer immigrants enough opportunity, or that US citizenship does not have enough benefits already.
Let me alternatively insist that it is the Islamists who must move in OUR direction; that they must become proactive in turning in their own for disloyalty to America, that they must begin to stringently, aggressively pressure their own to assimilate into our language, customs, and culture in America. Thus far they simply have not done so - not in America, nor in any other non-muslim host country that I can name. Their chief distinction is actually that they do not do that.
Buddhists have done it, Hindus, countless others, but the Muslims stubbornly refuse to. Curiously they also seem to have trouble "playing nice" in the sandbox with these other religions in other countries (India, Pakistan, Philippines)
Sorry to restate the obvious, but the ones who are religiously intolerant everywhere they go as a matter of course are the ones who have their butts in the air five times a day, bowing to Mecca.
>"You might not be advocating internments, but note how the post before yours puts encouraged in quotes in discussing Muslims leaving the US."<
So what? That's not MY quote, is it? Even so, as delineated in my previous paragraphs, if Islamists are not going to blend in and exhibit the same tolerance towards others which they agitate for, maybe they SHOULD leave. They will NOT be permitted to turn the US into an Islamic state theocratic 'paradise', except for over my (and several others', I imagine) dead body.
They began their influx into the Netherlands very much the same way they have embarked into the US. As if the news accounts of Theo Van Gogh's murder, the daily assaults, muggings, rapes, and other petty crimes, the in-classroom intimidations of Dutch teachers for not teaching about Islam... are not enough, I have many friends who live there. In Amsterdam, in Huizen...all across the country Dutch folk live in fear of this formerly benign, innocuous minority.
Should this begin now? No, but if they do not mend their ways and immediately begin making nice in all of the ways I stated, it should not be off the table whatsoever.
The concept of citizenship in America is quite strong enough, thank you. What needs to be strengthened is the concept that would-be American citizen aspirants should be prepared to bring something to the table - that they must like all other immigrants before them, forswear other loyalties, and freely give the US their allegiance with an honest heart. What needs to be reiterated is that there are responsibilities which accompany the privileges, and it is past time for them to show that they mean to honor that.
For a comparable idea of the meaning of being a loyal American citizen, let's look at the first and second generation of "Ellis Island" Italians. In WWII, against the Axis powers - Germany and Italy - more than 40% (yes that number is correct) of all enlisted men in the US Army WERE ITALIAN.
They went to war fighting to demonstrate their loyalty for their "new" country, and in part to 'free' their old country. I hear of no such numbers of Muslims signing up for the military now - not even .25%. The Muslim contribution to American cultural life, is in fact, rather negligible to this point, and too much, it could be argued is detrimental.
I will not intern them, not even encourage them to leave, but if they don't shape up as a group, I won't miss them one bit.
A.A.C.
Nope. The real quote says "religion" not "God"...in other words, your whole point about it having to be the same God as Judeo-Christian is wrong.
I'm glad you don't spout those made up MAdison quotes that were circulating. They are easily shown false when you look at the writings of Madison, and legislation he wrote, containing such lines as: "...all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion..."
But let's go right to the heart of the matter:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
--James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," June 20, 1785
With an ocean between them, it likely did not strike them as necessary, but rather as a forgone conclusion that readers would understand if it ever became an issue.
Gee...they didn't seem to be so blasé about other entities across the ocean!
...both distant and recent precedent to suggest we should NOT TRUST them.
For Islamists in general, it seems very prudent not to trust them. But of all the American citizens who are Islamist, how many have demonstrated this..and how many Muslims will you lump in with them?
...wherever Islam is practiced without enforced limits or strictures, it becomes the predominant religion, to the detriment and destruction of all other religions.
I can appreciate your pragmatic, no-faith-in-Christianity's-supremacy approach, but I would suggest a second step...let's examine how such a twisted religion can gain ground. How is it able to spread if it's so vile?
When ALL of Islam (and I mean ALL) begins to...
I invite you to substitute "Christianity" in there and look at many cases where a few nuts are far from the mainstream. Should all churches be judged based on the Identity movement, for example?
The U.S. is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. We have always been a representative Republic.
It's insulting that you twist this around and make it seem like I don't know that, when I am the one bringing up Federalist X and pointing out that protection of the majority is not the question.
...this time we can take their word for things...
I'm not saying we should take their word for things. I'm saying we should simply keep our own Constitution strong and treat citizenship like the precious thing is should be...not pass it out to anyone who waltzes in across our too-porous border. I'm saying we shouldn't be harassing our own citizens...we should be addressing the problem for what it is.
...request to cite any misquoted lines which I had presented as accurate full quotes
So that's how you do it...you make claims that misrepresent the person you're "not exactly quoting"...and then claim it wasn't presented as an accurate full quote. Well, bottom line is that your Adams comment misrepresented Adams' quote.
"Strengthening our concept of citizenship" is bull-hockey, however. That sounds to me like a euphemistic way of suggesting that we do not already offer immigrants enough opportunity, or that US citizenship does not have enough benefits already.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm NOT saying we should offer more opportunity to immigrants...but am saying we must respect citizenship more and protect it more.
...to stringently, aggressively pressure their own to assimilate into our language, customs, and culture in America. Thus far they simply have not done so - not in America, nor in any other non-muslim host country that I can name. Their chief distinction is actually that they do not do that.
Maybe the Hispanic Catholic immigrants can help them out with some pointers on how to assimilate.
In WWII, against the Axis powers - Germany and Italy - more than 40% (yes that number is correct) of all enlisted men in the US Army WERE ITALIAN.
Okay, I'm going to have to call you on that. First of all, the Axis contained Japan, also (not exactly a minor combatant). Secondly, there were 1/2-million Italian-Americans in the service, which is less than the total number of Italians we interned in this country during the war (about 600,000, including Joe DiMaggio's father)! You'd have to claim an awfully large officer corps to claim 40% of the enlisted were Italian-American, with our forces numbering several million.
Note, Catholics were also mistrusted in the 19th Century, since "they put the Pope above the President".
The Muslim contribution to American cultural life, is in fact, rather negligible to this point, and too much, it could be argued is detrimental.
Would you like their contribution to increase?
(Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
You forgot "Hands full!" ;-)