Critique of Pure Islam

CitizenWarrior.com ^ | 11-23-11 | Citizen Warrior

[ronnie raygun]

Portraying racist Americans in the national and world arena proving how foolish they look and how far superior and advanced muslims are compared to. Just the trailer shown on tv with the muslim women telling the American to “shut up move out of my way I have to go to a conference and talk about how stupid you really are” tells you that for one, she would never be speaking to her husband like this and two, they have taken a page out of the male emasculation book we have seen lately on tv and transposed it into an islamaphobia hit piece on Americans.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Do we allow the violent practices or Thugee? Or the blood sacrifices of the Mayan religion? These were certainly religions, would we also allow them to practice openly in American society?

Or perhaps Islam as been miscatagorized as a religion. Perhaps its status should be challenged since it operates more like a violent criminal enterprise or street gang. What is the collection of protection payments (Jizira?) Or the actual application of violence against non Islamic peoples in Islamic lands or countries with large Islamic populations.

[Interesting Times]

Fair enough, let me rephrase: Attempting to make Islam illegal runs afoul of the First Amendment (as is advocated by many here).

Arguably true.

The point is that it is Sharia that is the problem, not how some choose to worship.

Agreed. The problem is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that extends far beyond what we normally think of as "religion."

If you want to bring legal machinery to bear, the target needs to be Sharia, not Islam, for it to be both effective and consistent with the Constitution.

Good point. Thanks for the clarification.

[MurrietaMadman]

Thanks for the historical connection. I’ve been working to reintroduce that angle into a planned Sharia law awareness presentation.

[AustinBill]

Debating the religious status of Islam or any other faith is counterproductive. The Constitution does not recognize "thought crime". What is subject to law is behavior, not belief. You may well believe it to be your religious duty to engage in human sacrifice but you'll be arrested and prosecuted if you do so, not because of your belief, but for your actions.

This is an important distinction and the basis for the Rule of Law. It is the reason why attacking Islam has no legal basis while Sharia is wide open to such controls by civil authorities. The failure to make this distinction is why the West is in such a muddle over Islam.

[patriot08]

.

From ‘Bare naked Islam’
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/tlcs-all-american-muslim-series-sponsor-boycott-list/

Here’s a simple email form to send: TLC SPONSOR LETTER
http://florida-family.org/take_action_form.php?message=51

SWEET & LOW
CLINIQUE
JOHN FRIEDA HAIR CARE
WAL-MART
K-MART
PET SMART
DYSON VACUUMS
AMWAY
STOP & SHOP
CHASE BANK
T-MOBILE
HTC RADAR PHONE
CENTRUM
HOME DEPOT
SONIC
TIME WARNER CABLE
NBC NEWS
PRO-ACTIV
AIRBORNE SUPPLEMENTS
LION KING
KETTLE CHIPS
TRUE BLUE TEST
KAYAK.COM
KAHLUA
TRUMOO
KINECT
BOB’S FURNITURE
FREE COUNTRY CLOTHING
NORTH SHORE/LIJ HOSPITAL
LEAP FROG
FACEBOOK Boycott TLC here: BoycottTLC
https://www.facebook.com/BoycottTLC

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

You ignore my comments about the “actions” and “violent practice” of the Thugee, Mayans, and Islam, which “operate” as if they were etc, etc. If they were just a religion of ideas there would be no issue, but they are not.

I think it is legitimate to question whether a religion that operates (acts, not thinks) like a criminal enterprise can claim a religious status and special protections provided by the Constitution for religions. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I doubt the framers would have a problem with denying Islam religious protections since Islam would deny to others the religious and legal protections it would claim for itself.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

You ignore my comments about the “actions” and “violent practice” of the Thugee, Mayans, and Islam, which “operate” as if they were etc, etc. If they were just a religion of ideas there would be no issue, but they are not.

I think it is legitimate to question whether a religion that operates (acts, not thinks) like a criminal enterprise can claim a religious status and special protections provided by the Constitution for religions. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I doubt the framers would have a problem with denying Islam religious protections since Islam would deny to others the religious and legal protections it would claim for itself.

[AustinBill]

Belief systems do not exist apart from their adherents. A belief system which is no longer practiced is like a language which no one speaks. Of historical/academic interest perhaps, but not relevant to daily life.

The Framers most certainly would have a problem with excluding Islam from the First amendment. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin are all on record on this (see this article for citations).

So I continue to maintain that it is counterproductive to attempt to legislate belief. Behavior is the only proper subject of law.