Monitoring Mosques Matters (Americans Need To Realize We're At War)

Some day we will be forced to deal fully with the war we are in, and when that happens we're going to discover a lot of very nasty problems about the future of America. One of them has to do with, of all things, the First Amendment. Consider this story from Wednesday's London Times:

An American al Qaeda operative who was a close associate of the leader of the July 7 bombers was recruited at a New York mosque that British militants helped to run.

British radicals regularly traveled to the Masjid Fatima Islamic Centre, in Queens, to organize sending American volunteers to jihadi training camps in Pakistan.

Investigators reportedly found that Mohammad Sidique Khan had made calls to the mosque last year in the months before he led the terrorist attack on London that killed 52 innocent people. ...

Mohammad Junaid Babar, one recruit from the Masjid Fatima Islamic Centre, has told U.S. intelligence officials that he met Khan in a jihadi training camp in Pakistan in July 2003. He claims that the pair became friends as they studied how to assemble explosive devices.

Babar, 31, a computer programmer, says that it was at the Masjid Fatima centre that he became a radical.

It's interesting that British jihadis came to Queens to recruit Americans — and no doubt some of them, fully trained in slaughter, have returned to these shores — but the important thing is the mosque. Because there's always a mosque, as my Italian friend Magdi Allam has been repeating for several years. Not all mosques are jihadi, but all jihadis come from a mosque.

Look at the 9/11 terrorists, look at the killer of Daniel Pearl, and you will find well-off, educated men who became radicalized in a

FROM “MOSQUES IN THE USA.”:

http://libraries.mit.edu/guides/subjects/islamicarchitecture/visual/usamosques.html

Designed Mosques in the United States and Canada

Mosques and Islamic centers are being built all over the United States of America and Canada.

These projects range from small prefab buildings to grand, monumental structures.

To date there are over 2,000 mosques in the United States of America alone.

FROM THE MUSLIM INTERNET DIRECTORY:

http://2muslims.com/directory/Mosques_And_Centers/United_States/index.shtml

Home > Mosques And Centers > United States
United States
SubCategories In United States

Alabama (2)
Arizona (1)
California (13)
Connecticut (0)
District of Columbia (1)
Florida (4)
Georgia (3)
Illinois (7)
Indiana (3)
Iowa (5)
Maryland (3)
Massachusetts (1)
Michigan (5)
missouri (1)
New Hampshire (1)
New York (5)
North Carolina (3)
Ohio (3)
Oregon (4)
Pennsylvania (2)
South Dakota (1)
Tennessee (4)
Texas (6)
UTAH (8)
Virginia (9)

Some of the answer is easy:

The right to peaceable assembly: this is not a right to peaceful assembly but to peaceable assembly. Any assembly that is otherwise peaceful but has as its motivation the incitement to violence against Persons is not a peaceable assembly. This would allow anti-KKK laws to be potentially used against any Wahabi gatherings OUTSIDE of mosque.

The prohibition against "respecting an establishment of Religion" must be accurately understood. Right now this concept is perverted by our political and legal classes. To respect an establishment of Religion is to set up some statement of doctrinal religious truth AND to make public profession of same a prerequisite to some level of participation in society and its government.

For example––in a time and place known and influential to the Founding Fathers––in 1730 and 1767 (? last date, could be 1763 – going from memory) two separate attempts were made in Scotland to respect the Establishment of the Westminster Confession of Faith as a prerequisite for service in any government position. While there is nothing wrong with the WCoF, the move was expressly anti-Catholic (not that there were many seeing that Scotland had been excommunicated centuries earlier) as well as anti-Anglican and liberal-Scottish Presbyterian (who did not require profession of the WCoF to take communion).

Had the measure succeeded then any individual who would not make public profession of the WCoF would not be allowed––or no longer be allowed––to serve. This is the very definition of "respecting an establishment of Religion". The infighting was so fierce that congregations on THIS side of the pond were split (despite having no part in the debate beyond the excuse to lay into their neighbor).

Anything LESS than such as this an act IS NOT respecting an establishment of Religion.

For further corroboration look at the terms used: "respecting" is the verb and "establishment" is the noun, what is being respected. There is an old axiom to translation: if the same word is used under similar circumstances by the same author or authors with similar habits THEN the word means the same thing.

The word "establishment" occurs once elsewhere in the Constitution in the passage that states that the ratification of the article by a sufficient number of States shall be enough for the "Establishment" of the Constitution (the verb "respecting" is as much implied).

Here the word is a proper noun because a specific thing is being established. In the 1st Amendment the word is an improper noun because there would be no way to know what was being established until it was attempted.

So it can be seen that "establishment" is of such an authoritative kind that it drives people away from something: in the one case driving the several States from remaining under the Articles of Confederation and in the other, potentially driving nonconformist away from some aspect of their society.

Actually, in light of this, the official agnostic/secular interpretation of the clause is itself respecting an establishment of religious truth in that it DISALLOWS religious principal as a valid basis for laws. But I digress.

Anyway, to understand that there is no restriction of "good conscience" on "free exercise" (as there is on speech and assembly) is only part of the battle. True: we cannot legally disallow Wahabism as religious principal; BUT, to the extent that it promotes and demands the respecting of its Establishment (especially through violence), this belief system within Islam may be classified as a cult and treated accordingly.

Simply, the 1st Amendment demands that no one may be driven from society or its government on the basis of belief (as well as making religious principal the valid basis for laws––to be free but unable to act is not to be free at all); however, it does NOT demand that Persons should be in any way tolerant of other beliefs––especially those that WILL seek to push them into a second class status (if even that) should it ever gain power AND ESPECIALLY one that actively promotes violence against infidels towards that end.

So there is NOT a prohibition to dealing with a violent and establishmentarian sect within a religion as a cult. Nor is there a basis for punishing Persons who deal peaceably with other Persons whom they disagree with (which would include private attempts at surveillance of suspicious mosque, for example).

My two cents.

An interesting problem, but I believe there are precedents.

The free exercise of religion is protected, but cults are not. Scientology, the Unification Church, and many other religious-type organizations have been monitored by law enforcement, and the Republic still stands.

What needs to be faced is that Islam, at least on these shores, is not a religion, but a foreign-run gangster cult.

I don't think the Founders ever envisioned granting the unlimited right to practice faiths completely outside of, and hostile to, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and there are lines that need to be drawn: Forms of government only work with the philosophical "software" they were designed for.

That's why the Moslems keep setting up Moslem dictatorships (and calling them "republics"). Islam and Western-style individual freedom cannot coexist. And that's why our form of government is in fact a Judeo-Christian Republic.

But that is easier said than done, because the absolutist interpretation . . . The all-out defenders of free speech and free religion

When you read words and phrases like "absolutist" and "all-out defenders" you know you're dealing with a closet fascist who want to do away with that pesky little first amendment. The "anti-terror" laws and structures being built since 9-11 will ultimately be turned on the American people if the Ledeens of this world have their way (and they will).

The problem with Mosques and Muslims in America is that they're here. They should never have been allowed to immigrate to this country. We're at war, all right, but it's with the "American" elite, not Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism in the West is just an offshoot of the greater violence of colonialism being waged by the treasonous elite of the West against their own people, and Ledeen has been down with the policies of colonialism his whole life.

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.