Posted on 02/20/2006 7:46:11 AM PST by Dark Skies
When President Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech he went out of his way to make the world understand that it isn't a war with Islam itself that we were joining — and I say joining because the war had been started by the Jihadists decades before. And, in observance to our Western principles, that must be the correct way to view our conflagration with radical Islam.
Let's face facts, it certainly is uncomfortable to a Westerner who has been brought up on tolerance, freedom of religion, and liberty to contemplate a war against an entire religion. But are we approaching a time when Western nations won't have a choice but to target Islam itself in certain ways to keep their own people safe. The best course of action is to make public displays of Islam and certain of its practices illegal in Western nations.
So, the question becomes are we at that time now? Are we fast approaching a time when Mosques will be closed and banned? Have we come to a time when Islamic literature is turned away from our borders? Have the childish and dangerous reactions of Muslims to this cartoon in a Danish newspaper proven that Islam cannot be trusted to be a vital, peaceful, and law-abiding segment of society?
It is looking like yes is the answer to these queries.
We are already approaching this today. In Ontario they have officially outlawed Muslim Sharia law, that law that uses religious precepts to enforce moral and society codes of conduct. And Muslim "family councils" have been stopped where local community groups may supplement Canadian law with their local custom.
Several members of the John Howard administration in Australia have spoken out against Islamic clashes with Western notions of law and societal comportment many times over the last few years.
Recently Howard himself said, "I do think there is this particular complication because there is a fragment which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society, and that is a difficulty ... You can't find any equivalent in Italian, or Greek, or Lebanese, or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem."
Muslims routinely destroy property, threaten death and bodily harm to those who speak out against them, and they constantly fund terrorism throughout the world. In Syria they have burnt an embassy, in Europe Muslims have been responsible for murdering people who have written out against Islam or made movies, and other forms of art. These actions are also approved by Islamic teachers (Imams) and religious leaders, not just undertaken by warped loners claiming to represent Islam quite against the will of the majority or authority.
With this ridiculous cartoon issue, we have seen that Islam has no sense of perspective. In the west parody or satire is seen as not only common, but completely harmless for the most part. And religion is not immune to parody and satire, though even in the west most people are often uncomfortable with religious satire. Usually only people filled with hate attack religion in parody and most in the West instinctively know this. As a result, most people dismiss such parody as foolishness and bad taste.
But with Muslims overreacting — in western eyes at least — to this silly cartoon issue in the way they have, it becomes nearly impossible for Westerners to view Islam as a peaceful religion, but more as a vicious hate group itself. And that perception is justified with the actions that Muslims have increasingly perpetrated over the ensuing years. So, we find that Islam presents a danger to the safety of the populace all too often. It is violent, oppressive, and reactionary.
But, what is to be done about it? We have been raised to feel that religion should be left untouched by government. Freedom of religion is at the very core of our beliefs. And this concept is an important one to uphold. So, how can we honestly and without hypocrisy begin to look toward making Islam illegal?
There is a parallel of sorts in the USA that might be used as a template for action. The Ku klux Klan.
After the Civil War ended, the KKK arose from the ashes of war as an advocacy group for the disenfranchised white voter in the south. But it quickly became a terrorist organization bent on taking out revenge on the south's newly freed black population for having lost the war. It got so bad that even one of the original organizers, C.S. Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest, denounced the organization and quit it in disgust.
But as the late 1800s rolled on and the south began to re-enter the Union as full partners in government, the KKK began to lose steam and prominence. For a time it subsided. But as the 20th century neared, it re-emerged and this time became a nationwide and powerful force taking on the flavor of religious, civic and racial duty. The KKK became invested in government and claimed millions of members nation wide.
In the 1920s, however, it became too much for a liberty loving country to allow the KKK to any longer exist. In Indiana, the entire state government was scandalized by their fealty to Indiana's Klan leader who had raped and beaten his secretary on a train trip. Violence against and frequent lynching of southern blacks became so pervasive that Congress finally acted and banned the Klan. The organization collapsed never again to reclaim the power and prominence it once had.
Now, the KKK has always based its precepts on Christianity, as well as racial identity. It also reacted with violence, rallies, death threats and killing when it was threatened. It careened far away from being a mere "idea" or religious theology and became a terrorist organization. And it became a terrorist organization even though literally millions of Americans that belonged to or identified with the Klan were not themselves violent, evil, or dangerous citizens.
The leadership of the Klan supported violence. The leadership preached violence. The leadership planned and fomented it. Therefore, it had to go because it became a danger to every law-abiding citizen, whether they agreed with the racial and religious concepts the Klan espoused or not.
Islam has become the KKK of the 21st century. The sooner we awake to this truth and take steps to ban the religion, or somehow curtail its pernicious influence the better. The west is going to have to put sever restrictions on Islamic Mosques and public display of Islam. Further, devout Muslims should not be allowed to hold public office (though it certainly should not become a racial issue — sins of the father should not be visited upon the sons).
This is no religious purge as in centuries past. In the past religions were banned to be replaced by the state sponsored sect and believers of the banned religion were mistreated, tortured, unduly taxed, and terrorized. This is absolutely not the model the west would follow by banning aspects of Islam today. No religion is replacing Islam and no one is suggesting that Muslims be mistreated. But the creed to which they hold is fast becoming the most dangerous one in the world today. It is a fine line that we walk to consider banning Islam, but the safety of society is at risk not to do so.
This is not an easy conclusion at which to arrive. But if we continue to turn a blind eye to the danger that Islam presents to the west, we are signing our own death warrants.
The KKK was put down in the USA and made powerless for the same reason. Communism was destroyed for the same reason, as well. Islam is a danger to the world.
Unfortunately, it is just that simple.
I've found that to be par for the course on this site honestly. Sometimes I'm both amazed and terrified of the short sightedness of some "conservatives" on here. It seems many people on here are all for freedom and liberty as long as it jives with their worldview, otherwise they want you banned, outlawed, censored or killed. Just like the terrorists.
How so? Do you really believe that *most* muslims are jihadists? Most American muslims?
That's silly. That would only embolden the radicals who push their hate. Banning Islam would create a revival of Islamic believers. Ban any radicalism and support of hate filled organizations. We have laws, enforce them.
"We need resolve."
Exactly. Just because it's hard to allow a religion while tracking down and killing the crazies who murder in it's name doesn't absolve us from doing it. We could use more help from Muslims who don't support violence, but at the very least we need to call Islamic terrorism what it is and wipe it out.
Not a problem. We already have a precendent in the U.S.
In 1836 Missouri's govenor issued an extermination order against all Mormons in Missouri, based on nothing more than lies and innuendo.
The federal government at the time said nothing about this order being unconstitutional. To the contrary, the federal government was complicit and a willing participant in the actions against the Mormons.
Several years later when the Mormons were in the Utah terrirtory they sent an army to "keep an eye" on them.
Why can't we now do at least the same to a "religious" group that has a proven track record of violence and terrorism?
We cannot do that without repealing the first amendment to the Constitution. I'm amazed that so many here have no trouble with such a thing.
Here, we deal with individuals and their behavior. We can do that just fine.
I did not use the term muslim, you did. I have nothing against the people. Islam on the other hand is a cult. It considers free speech (of any kind disagreeable to islam) and all other religions to be blasphemy. The koran states that the penalty for blasphemy is death.
In other words, people (Westerners) need to understand more about Islam and Muslims and treat them the way they treat and write about Christianity and Christians.
The way to do it does not have to go against the Constitution. Banning incitement to violence is logical. Sedition laws are on the books (if someone swears an oath to the United States, and later is found to foment a revolt to destroy our government for the purpose of instituting Sharia, shouldn't we have a problem with that and be able to stop him as he clearly misrepresented himself to become a citizen?).
Nothing like religious fervor and a cult of personality to turn the rabble into a mob.
The toxic culture has been at war with Western Civilization for 700 years. We are at the culmination of that war. Do we wish to win or lose? A stated goal of Islam is literally to take over the world--politically and religiously.
What do you do about crazed paranoid nutcases bent on converting you, ruling you, or killing you?
My solution is to wipe the Earth clean of the infection. Yes, there are innocent little girls in Islam. There were innocent little girls on the planes of 9/11, also. The enemy has set the terms of engagement: there are no innocents, no civilians, no non-combatants. Very well; now that we understand the terms, we can fight it on their terms. We have done this before: total war against Germany in WWII is an example.
So choose. Be politically correct, and lose, or pragmatic (and brutal) and win.
I know my choice.
--Boris
Bingo! The cult of Islam has as much to do with religion as the Klan had to do with Christianity!
No. First Amendment.
However, sedition, incitement to murder, conspiracy, terrorist funding, and many other ACTS are illegal. Following the law makes any Religion restrained to its proper sphere.
If we can have paramilitary groups, black panthers, neo-nazis, satanists, socialists, and the kkk, we can have islam. Heck, we let the kkk have parades and go on national tv. We can ban activities they participate in that are illegal, but we can't start going around banning groups.
There's a balance here. Adjusting school lunch programs and refusing to publish a cartoon is too far in one direction. Banning the religion all together is too far in the other direction. They need to be treated like everybody else. No more. No less. Their rights end where our rights begin. Period.
Really? Where are they? How come they are not denouncing the actions of their extremists??
I'll tell ya why, because the "moderates" tacitly SUPPORT the terrorists thru donations and silence.
And you don't see a problem with that? People like you terrify me, I really hope you don't vote or breed.
I don't agree. We require a loyalty oath for citizenship, which requires support of our constitution. It appears that no muslim can honestly give that oath, and so should not be allowed citizenship. We would not be outlawing religion, per se, only that religion which is incompatibile with our constitution and our sense of liberty (which is definitely not 'liberty as defined under sharia'.)
The Koran teaches that force and guile are both allowed tools to convert the infidel, and if conversion fails, slavery is allowed. Just how tolerant of that am I supposed to be?
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.