Geert Wilders' recent call at a Palm Beach synagogue to ban Islam has stirred up all sorts of controversy, with more "moderate" blogs speaking out in opposition to it. So let's take a closer look at the issue of banning Islam.
Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.
On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.
The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history, neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate like the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.
That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.
That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.
Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.
And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam-- is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam's widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.
Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.
This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion--- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.
These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion... in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.
The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms, at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant lawbreaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children-- America correctly chose the latter.
In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, "We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statutes and views on Americans, violates Madison's fundamental and undeniable truth.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;
There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.
The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it-- thus upholding Jefferson's distinction between action and belief.
As the court put it;
The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.
But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.
We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam's practices can be seen in the same way.
France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honor killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.
Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.
And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.
This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.
The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties... because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.
Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;
And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely "belief", it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.
The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations-- and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations.
While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.
The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;
The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law... we already have a very broad net to work with.
Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again
Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.
Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29
There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.
Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization-- and can be banned.
So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations-- which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.
While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950's demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.
Thus we can ban Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down... and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.
We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become possible again.
Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.
That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.
That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.
Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.
And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam-- is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam's widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.
Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.
This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion--- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.
These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion... in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.
The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms, at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant lawbreaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children-- America correctly chose the latter.
In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, "We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statutes and views on Americans, violates Madison's fundamental and undeniable truth.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, and that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.
The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it-- thus upholding Jefferson's distinction between action and belief.
As the court put it;
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.
But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.
We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam's practices can be seen in the same way.
France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honor killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.
Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.
And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.
Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives
This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.
The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties... because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.
Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;
It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely "belief", it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.
The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations-- and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations.
While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.
The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;
Sec. 3. Islamic organizations, regardless of their assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated:
Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and willfully becomes or remains a member of such organizations, or (2) any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950
The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law... we already have a very broad net to work with.
Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again
Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship
Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.
Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.
Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization-- and can be banned.
While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950's demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.
Thus we can ban Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down... and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.
We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become possible again.
Comments
if you ban Islam then what will stop them from banning Judaism?
ReplyDeleteIt will give an excuse to the anti semite Xtian to do the same to Judaism. Even the Xtians who support Israel only do so because they think we will convert to their Yashua.
This is a dangerous advocation, more for us, than the Moslem.
Nothing stops them from banning it now, regardless of Islam.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...."Even the Xtians who support Israel only do so because they think we will convert to their Yashua." What a load of donkey dung! I love and support Israel and NOT because I think they'll convert. I support Israel because the Jews need a place to call their own and that place was given to them by Hashem (who is my Father in Heaven also).
ReplyDeleteDo Israelis support the USA because they think America will convert to Judaism? Let's get real. I want Israel to remain a Jewish state NOT to become a Christian one. I'm sure that I am not the only Christian Zionist who feels this way.
Getting back to the post....The USA should put a stop to all Moslem immigration and deport any radical Moslem who is not a citizen. Islam is to religion what Nazism is to politics and America would be better off without both.
Well this is a heavy post and a lot to think over for sure.
ReplyDeleteFirst rate newsgathering, research and analysis, my friend.
ReplyDeleteIt would be impossible to ban Islam as a religion. But if they're living in the US, as you wrote, we can and must hold them responsible to US civil and criminal laws.
Beit Dinim (Beit Dins?) and the Catholic whatever that grants annulments etc. are fine. Sharia Law should be in that similiar role and nothing more.
Canadian Muslim women were against instituting Sharia Law in Canada because of the threat that would place them under. They'd have no recourse in civil courts if they were abused.
If we institute Sharia law to replace our penal laws we're doomed.
Who knows? Perhaps if we're really firm on this we just might, maybe, reform Islam a little bit or at least make them conform to our laws as a condition of citizenship.
It's unlikely Islam will reform on its own but we certainly can make Muslims in the US conform to our standards of behavior and law.
Well done, Sultan, thank you for keeping the question alive. In March of '07, Pedestrian Infidel promulgated a proposed Amendment 28 which would outlaw the public practice & propagation of Islam in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI cordially invite you to read, email and cross post the html evidence behind the Outlaw Islam Petition and to join the 100 courageous and outspoken individuals who have endorsed it.
When you can find the time, visit
Crusader's Armory, peruse the resources and download whatever you can use.
On the question of precedent setting: Islam has declared and is prosecuting unremitting perpetual warfare against the whole human race. Has Judaism done the same? What reason is there for proposing to outlaw Judaism? I find none.
On the suggestion of reformation: can perfection be improved? No, Keli, it can only be defiled. Have you read Al-Maida 3? Furthermore, Allah's word can not be changed,6:115 nor can Islam;30:30 .
keli: Beitei dinim is the plural.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Lemon:) Very much.
ReplyDeleteBen, I respectfully disagree a little. If we as Americans control Islam's attempts to subvert US laws we will in essence reform Islam to a certain degree. Reform all Muslims? No. But reform Islam enough in our country to prevent a total take over.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I meant by reform Islam.
Sultan, what is stopping them from banning it now, is the same reason, there are more people who are anti Jewish than anti Moslem. It will give them an excuse.
ReplyDeleteXtian Zionist, you do not represent the mainstream of Xtians. In fact the reason Israel and Zionism is being attacked in the US now is because of Xtian right. Why do you think Obama won? The CHANGE XTIANS want is in Mid East.
Xtian Zionists are a liability we can do without. They are no political benefit, and are causing mischief in Israel with their funding of Efraimites, Messianic and Xtianising Israel.
Sultan, whilst I appreciate your efforts in englightening us, I think you should also keep up with growing anti semitism amongst the Xtian in the US, and while the Xtian Zionist may care for Israel remember they want an Xtian state, they vetoed the anti missionary law, that we need in Israel.
ReplyDeletePatrico above is an exmaple. Sorry Patrico, i'm not buying. I have family in Israel who are furious about the funding of Xtian missionaries by Xtian Zionists.
Evangelicals want Jews to leave the US, settle in Israel to bring the anti Christ. They would have no hesitation in kicking out Jews after the Moslem if this comes about.
The change of sentiment in the US is dangerous, have you read the talkbacks at the major used to be pro-Israel publications? They blame Israel for most of the problems in the US, this will get worse with the economic looming disaster. They are just looking for an excuse to get the Jew out. What you are proposing is just what they need.
My point is most Americans now see Israel as a bigger liablity than Islamic terrorists. Not only that, they're now blaming us.
Dear Patricio, I appreciate your sentiment if you are telling the truth and your support is unconditional. I don't believe it is. In fact it has proven to be dangerous and misguided.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Xtian Zionist support comes with aheavy price, it is conditional.
I frankly would like to see Jews and Israel have better relations with unconditional Xtian supporters those whom you alientate. I'm sorry, but you do not speak for all Xtians in the US, as Xtian Zionists have no political clout. Those Xtians that do have clout, we manage to alientate to a dangerous degree becausse they see us allied to you.
Why did Evangelicals object to the anti-missionary law that we were going to bring into Israel? Much of the "support funds" that Evangelicas send to Israel is used to Xtianise Israel.
Hashem warned us against allowing paganism and idolatry to flourish in Israel.
Become Noahides, if you really support us, otherwise, leave us alone.
Patricio, "Getting back to the post....The USA should put a stop to all Moslem immigration and deport any radical Moslem who is not a citizen. Islam is to religion what Nazism is to politics and America would be better off without both."
ReplyDeleteThe same is true for the Xtian Right who shove their religion down our throats.
Xtianity should be banned too, America was founded upon secular principles to separate State from Religion. Xtian Fundamentalists tried to Xtianise America, still are, that is why the Dems were voted in, to stop this menace.
If it wasn't for the Xtian Right, Obama and the Dems wouldn't have got such powwer. If Mccain had chosen, Lieberman, instead of Palin, he wouldnt have lost with such a big majority.
The fact is, the Xtian Fundamentalists is the reason, we have the Dems in power now, and why Israel is in this predicament.
Ben, i'm not comfortable with your proposal. What reason is there to outlaw Judaism you ask? Anne Coulter said Jews should convert to Christianity. If Islam is banned, rest assured the Nazi's and White Supremacists and Christians who want us to convert will be given a golden opportunity.
ReplyDeleteA lot of these already mask their anti-Jewish sentiment, under the guise of Anti Zionism or Anti Israel sentiment.
The gloves will come off and they wont have to pretend or hide their Jew hatred.
You are making the same mistake that the Jews did in Nazi Germany. They were sure, the Germans would never turn against them, and they did.
to Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteMcCain didn't lose because of social issues. That's a myth liberals keep perpetuating it. Choosing Lieberman would have produced an even lower conservative turnout. Do you really think millions more would have voted for McCain with Lieberman on the ticket?
As for Xtian Zionists, there's no such collective one sided movement. There are those who actually support the state of Israel for various reasons, some political and some theological.
Some genuinely support Israel, some try to manipulate us for cynical missionary agendas. It is important to distinguish one from the other, though it can be hard.
to Haim,
ReplyDeleteWhite supremacists and nazis aren't in power, Ron Paul's performance hasn't exactly been convincing in that regard. Yes some of them can be omnipresent in various comment sections, but they don't represent mainstream American conservatives. Neither really does Ann Coulter who simply says nasty things to get attention.
In any case we all have a larger enemy to deal with, one that will make such distinctions all but irrelevant.
Sultan, True the White Supremacists and Nazi's aren't in power, but they're gaining ground, and finding allies, they're coming out of their shells.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean they don't speak for mainstream conservatives? Which planet are you living on?
This backlash against Convservatism is irreversible and it wouldn't have come about if we had been more prudent after 9/11.
The Right wing, is blamed for attacking a secular Iraq, with fabricated evidence and a wasted 1 trillion war. What did Israel gain? Attacking Iraq weakened Israel.
I am not a "liberal" i'm from a politcal family, an Irgun. I want the best for Israel, and the best for Israel is not be reliant on fringe looneys that anger the majority.
Like it or not we are dependant on the US for the time being.
Tell me, what makes you think that the US won't be pushed into a situation where she has to bomb Israel?
The question is this, and answer it honestly,
If it served US interests, would she bomb Israel? I'm sure she would the way things are going. You are so consumed with the Islamic threat that you can't see, it isn't just Islamic. SECULAR MARXISTS are more influential than the Islamics.
You're overlooking one important thing. OBAMA CAME INTO POWER WITH A MAJORITY. A Lieberman with McCain wouldn't have scared off the liberals, the way Palin did. The conservatives are a dying breed.
Conservatives won't win the next election.
My fear, which is being confirmed each day, is that the next admin after Obama will be even more Radical than this one.
If the Republicans did a radical turn they would win the next election. They know this. Radical towards the left. If they do, rest assured it will be even more left wing than the current administration.
There is no backlash against conservatism. There is a backlash against Republicans, which is the natural result of dissatisfaction with a party that's been in power for 6-8 years. It happens to every party sooner or later, and it washes away after a few years.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans experienced the same thing after Bush Sr and the Dems after Clinton.
Attacking Iraq removed Saddam from power, which had both positive and negative consequences for everyone.
McCain would not have attracted liberals with Lieberman on board. It was liberals who drove Lieberman out of the party in the first place.
Secular Marxists are more influential, but more short lived. What they do serves Islam, before they themselves get wiped out by the Muslims. Just as it happened in Iran and is happening in Europe. The leftist-Muslim coalitions always end with the Muslims eating their lunch.
As for bombing Israel, we may well be headed that way regardless under Obama, as Yugoslavia was under Clinton.
Assuming that America does not lose free elections, conservatives will be back in power when the wheel turns again.
While the balance has shifted left, a radical left turn would make Republicans redundant and alienate their base. So I suspect it will be a subtle turn as it was with Bush Jr.
Haim wrote, "Conservatives won't win the next election."
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain of that. There is growing unrest among conservatives, with the religious right as well as with the Republican party as it stands.
Witness the growing "tea parties" across the country. Liberals and media pundits claim its some sort of organized plot on the part of the Rebulicans--not true. These are genuine movements, led locally.
Also, they're not being led by ignorant yahoos. The one in Buffalo has an attorney at the helm. Neither are they Anarchists. It's easy to dismiss the movement but the fact remains that taxpayers are disgusted with having their hard earned taxes frittered away on Obama's every whim.
Al Capone the Chicago mobster was put in jail because of tax evasion. Obama the Chicago fraud will be elected out of office due to carelessness with the use of American tax dollars.
Sultan,
ReplyDeleteLet me understand what you propose, and where you're coming from. Imagine that Islam is banned in the US (unlikely, but let's pretend it is)
1. You think the Conservatives will ban Islam, and that will benefit Jews and Israel. How so? Banning Islam won't make the US more pro-Israel, or you believe it will? Nothing will change for Israel, or Jews for that matter, and it may make it worse.
You also think that banning Islam will not stop Moslem countries trading with the USA, (I won't even mention the oil, maybe the USA can fight with China over Russian oil once the Muslims are alienated and expelled from the US)? Do you also propose banning Islam in Russia? Do you know how many Moslims are in Russia? Islam is spreading there alarmingly. Russian Orthodox is becoming Moslem.
Where will native American converts go? They outnumber the immigrant Muslims.
Most important, how then do you stop the call for banning Judaism and expelling Jews the favoured "fifth column"?
Unless you believe that the Conservatives will have the power to stop all other calls for any other religion to be banned.
Will Jews in the US be safe if the precedent to ban a religion is put in motion? You seem to think so. Please explain exactly what will be achieved.
Will the US give up the two state solution if Islam is banned in the USA?
Nope.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I'm laying out possible guidelines for it, not necessarily proposing it.
1. Banning Islam in the US will have no impact on Israel. It isn't about helping Jews, but about helping America. A glance at the current situation in France or the UK should demonstrate why.
2. The only real thing Moslems have to trade is oil, and the national security and foreign policy issues why we should be off foreign oil are obvious enough. Shipping billions to the Saudis or the UAE so they can finance terrorism is not exactly smart.
3. Where will American Muslims go? Converts are often more fanatical and more dangerous than immigrant Muslims. And with Communist, past the Palmer Raids, we didn't distinguish between immigrant Communists or native Communists. I don't see why we should here. Anyone who believes that the US should be overthrown and its laws replaced with Muslim laws, has no place in the US.
4. The call to ban Judaism will exist regardless. One has nothing to do with the other. But Jews aren't working to violently overthrow the United States, Muslims are.
5. I don't see that removing Muslims will somehow make Jews less safe.
6. The Two State solution isn't a product of domestic Muslims. It's a product of foreign oil money and Dhimmist appeasement. So one has nothing to do with the other.
Keli, Islam is not the sum of Muslims. Islam is what Moe preached & practiced. Moe deliberately made Islam static. Its doctrines can not be changed. Follow the two links I posted earlier. Those ayat leave no wiggle room.
ReplyDeleteHaim, Judaism and Islam have a few things in common because of moe's plagiarism. But, unlike Islam, Judaism is not aggressive.
ReplyDeleteJews are not obligated to conquer the entire world. Israel had one mandatory conquest, the rest of her wars were defensive.
Islam must conquer the world or be damned. Muslims have only one sure way to avoid eternity in the fire. A Muslim who does not participate in Jihad is at great risk of eternal damnation. A Muslim who dies in battle is assured of admission to Paradise.
I do not deny the existence or resurgence of antisemitism. I simply state that there is no good reason for excluding Jews or Judaism. They ain't at war against us, Islam is.
Ben and Sultan,
ReplyDeleteWith respect, I think you're both a bit deluded.
Discussions like this will only encourage anti-semites to come out of the closet and legalise Mein Kempf again.
To ban Islam or any other religion you'd need the Nazi's or a Supremacist group in power, and they'd ban Judasim too. If you put it to the vote today, most Americans would say they want Xtianity banned in the US, not Islam. But even if it was, then you can't stop calls for banning Judaism.
Oil isn't the only thing the US needs from the Moslem world, what about trade with Moslem countries? Russia, China and India, certainly Europe will be majority Muslim in the near future. Even without oil, the USA will never alienate 57 countries, and the coming economic superpowers.
You both insist that Jews are not out to conquer the world. But that is not how the Anti-Zionists and Anti-Israeli's or Anti-Semites see it. They think the Jews (through Israel) want world dominion. You also underestimate the anti-Jewish sentiment in the US, the lessening of US relevance in world affairs, and the increasing sentiment in the US that Israel is a liability, and Jews are fifth columnist liabilities.
American people have already made their choice. I think you're grabbing onto a dream, the tea parties, and dissenters are only an irrelevant minority.
If Islam is banned on the premise it's out to overthrow the US, (imagine how deluded that sounds when America voted in a half Moslem man)they'll want Judaism/Zionism banned on the same ground and they will have more support.
I think you both put your faith in conservatives too much and are deluded about their power. Even if Conservatives were in power, they wouldn't ban a religion. You'd need a supremacist group in power to do that, and they'd elimate every other religion/belief other than their own.
Besides, your argument against Islam's supremacy using violent methods are flimsy, to anyone who has studied history.
America will go even more left, not right. Obama is in for 2 terms at the very least.
Instead of holding onto dreams, it's better to plan for a reality and not an imagined dream.
Most Americans have made it clear, that they want a new world order.
The bottom line is that the USA has nothing to gain and everything to lose by banning Islam. For a start all Moslem countries will stop trading with the US. She won't last a week, with trade emargoes, and no doubt that China and Russia would follow suit.
Ben, when Jews propose banning Islam using Crusader websites as you're doing, you're setting a dangerous precedent.
The anti-semites are always out of the closet and quite active, note the Ron Paul campaign. This has nothing to do with that.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need a Nazi group to ban a terrorist ideology. Russia may be turning Muslim, but then oil and gas are about the only things Russia has to trade either these days.
Billions of Chinese and Hindus are not about to turn Muslim.
The average American did not know or understand Obama's Muslim background, the official story from Obama and the press was that he was fully Christian.
The US is the key market for Muslim countries, an embargo would hurt them more than us in the long run. Furthermore we need to get off foreign oil anyway and stop putting money into countries that only use them to finance terrorism.
China could no more stop trading with us, than it could cut its own economic throat. Nor would it bother over us doing something that's not too far from state police in the PRC.
Anonymous, I am not a Jew, I am a Goy who believes that Jews and Israel have the same rights as we do and ought to be allowed to live in peace and security.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge the existence of antisemitism, and the growing incidence thereof. But I am convinced that more of it is Islamic than Christian.
Under present conditions, the chances of outlawing Islam are slim to none and the chances of banning Judaism in America are even less.
My interest is in the preservation and expansion of liberty & security. Islam is an intolerable threat to both.
You doubt the violent spread of Islam? Read any Islamic history! Turn to the Hilali & khan Noble Qur'an at the King Fahd Complex and read their footnote to 2:190.
Turn next to Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9. Read O9.0--9.11
270 million people went to their graves early in the 1400 year history of Islam.
We ignore Islam; its doctrines & practices at our peril.
Sultan,To state that Russia and the Muslim world has nothing to offer the US except oil, and to ignore China's relations with the islamic world are excellent with it's own growing islamic population, and India's, either shows your ignorance or you pretend.
ReplyDeleteI hope it's the latter, and not the former, for your sake.
Your last post belies a lack of knowledge about economics, world geopolitcs, therefore I won't waste time nitpicking it.
The Muslim world has nothing to offer us except oil and the usual third world exports that can easily be duplicated anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteChina has growing problems with its own Muslim minority and is maintaining tight control over them.
Your entire set of comments display a case of blatant ignorance mixed with wishful thinking.
First let's recognize that Islam is NOT a religion, any more than believing in headhunters is a religion. Just because a group recognizes an ancient desert moon-god does not give Islam any legitimacy. Any ideology that preaches hatred is the antithesis of religion. Islam hides behind the term and it fools our lawmakers every day. 9/11 was 8 years ago and we have learned nothing.
ReplyDeleteI'm really surprised that Google/Blogger hasn't deleted your blog. They did mine, which was essentially a series of videos mostly by Muslims calling for global domination and death to the infidels.
ReplyDeleteI noticed it had been visited by a number of law firms - CAIR-induced, perhaps?
could be
ReplyDeleteDallas, check out "Islam's Mercenary Mission", you can find it with any search engine.
ReplyDeleteIf it is mercenary, it ain't a legitimate religion. Religions are eleemosynary, not mercenary.
Anonymous, I doubt that CAIR is interested in suing anyone who does not have deep pockets they can pick through the agency of lawyers. The exceptions are high profile critics.
Blogger has not hassled me. They did falsely accuse one blog where I guest post of "spamming", but that was cleared up in a matter of weeks.
There is an alternative: get a domain name, sign up for a freebee at Free Web Hosting and install WordPress. Then you can have your own blog without having to worry about the leftwingers taking you down arbitrarily.
The DHS has been camping out in one of my old posts for two weeks, since the day after the Fort Hood Massacre. They brought the FBI with them, plus state and local agencies.
That post is about a Kuwaiti Sheikh who chortled on tape about sneaking anthrax over the border. Another man with the same last name attended a meeting with a Syrian named Nidal Hasan, and away we go.
The identity of another recent visitor to the post indicates that something is up: they are worried about another biological attack. They have not yet come for me, and I do not expect that they will.
Good posts. Instead of arguing the pros and cons regarding fully banning a religion, which was skillfully argued on both sides, enough to sway me to a middle ground, let's stick with the precedent of simply outlawing practices of Sharia law that violate common law and the constitution, as was stated in this article.
ReplyDeleteSorry Islamists! Even though it's anethema to sharia law, one woman's testimony is the equal to one man's testimony, here in America. We also gave up stoning our adulterers centurys ago (which the mohammedans enshrined forever in sharia, the unchangeable laws, the "word of god"). It's too bad that your religion is what keeps you from growing up, too. You're welcome here, but leave that mysogonistic, 7th century nonsense at the door. We want no part of it, and it's not welcome here.
Let's stick with enforcing our laws and constitution, and not kowtow to any Islamist demands. Which should mean deporting imams with "extremist" (read: devout mehommedans (muslims) correctly following their "holy" book as it was intended) views of taking over this country.
Anonymous, while you strongly argued your perspective, and did sway me into recontemplating the slippery slope of outright banning a religion, I believe you yourself are missing some key points that Ben and Sultan expressed, which are quite valid.
The pockets of anti-semites, aren't as big as you believe, being mostly confined to Americas college campuses, some "elites' in the media, and the much smaller pockets of KKK type people. The vast majority of Americans are not anti-semite, and do support Israel's right to live in peace.
Ben's assessment of the large grass routes movement of the Tea Partiers (which is growing even more, as the government sways more to the extreme left) is the result of the dissatisfaction and distrust of this government in general (Dem or Repub), and it IS growing.
That all said, you've made me remember that the German's, at the time of Hitler, were one of the most educated of nations, with exemplary colleges. And if our American colleges are currently nearly over-run with anti-semitic/anti-Israel (not to mention anti-American) groups, teaching our children, well, what have we learned from history, and how quickly pograms can ignite and spread among a compliant populous?
Thank you for reminding me of that fact.
So, let's stick with strictly enforcing our laws, sharia law be damned, and upholding the constitution.
Then again, we're still trying to get our elected representatives do just that. selah.
I also wanted to address the poster who equated conservatism with the KKK style groups, and who asked "what planet are you living on?". We're on the same planet you are. The better question is who's "news" are you reading?? Conservatism has NOTHING to do with ideologies of the KKK style supremacy groups. Me thinks thou hast been reading far too many leftist rags. lmao~! That's almost as funny as the poster who really thinks "most Americans would vote to outlaw christianity before islam". Too friggin hilarious! Thanks for the needed laugh! :-P :-)
And lastly, to Anonymous, the only one you (and Israel) should put your full trust in is Hashem.
May there be true peace in Israel, soon.
Being a gentile I can tell you that most Americans think that the have been sold out over Obamas world ass kissing tour. I have never felt fearful of the Jews, most americans I know support Israel. We know there is something wrong with this religion of peace called Islam. Keep educating us don't fear us we are on your side.
ReplyDeleteSultan Knish, wow! Thank you for a very well thought out plan.
ReplyDeleteOnly those who's stated goal is to overthrow our government or threaten non-believers lose their 1st Amendment protections.
How do we overcome the 15 second sound bite mentality in this country so such a detailed plan can be discussed in a civilized manner?
break it down to, "we're not banning religion, only terrorism disguised as religion"
ReplyDeleteAccording to Rav Chaim Vital, Islam has to take over the world and unify it against Israel for Mashiach to come. With the election of Obama this has come true. Even if the Republicans sweep both Houses of Congress this November, Obama will concentrate the second half of his first term on foreign policy. As a Liberation theologist who sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, he believes that his personal salvation requires righting all of America's wrongs against the Muslim World. In his mind this means that the creation of a Palestinian State will achieve this goal. Watch him make this his number one priority after November. He will shove a peace treaty down our throats even though Abbas will never recognize Israel as a Jewish State. He will use the Quartet to accomplish this task knowing that the Americans are too pro-Israel to force the issue themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn short Obama's election is as much about dividing Jerusalem as it is about bringing Sharia Law into America. If my hunch is correct about Obama, Zecharia 14 will be on its way to fulfillment this Jewish year 5771.
I come to this thread rather late from a Jihad Watch referral, not having been a reader when it was written.
ReplyDeletePreviously I have seen a fairly harsh proposed Constitutional Amendment at FFI and a proposal by Robert Spencer at Citizen Warrior based on General MacArthur's Shinto Directive.
I was in favor of the latter for a while until I realized that this is essentially the same as what Ataturk did, and now today Turkey is paying the price for leaving in place a belief that the Quran is the word of a real God.
What is particularly disenheartening to me is that I am coming to this article two years after it was written, and while it largely parallels my own thinking on the matter, it has not gotten any traction over the last two years, and this concept is not being talked about anywhere outside of counter-jihad circles, let alone the media or any political or enforcement action being taken.
I know there are high-powered attorney's and intellectuals working for the cause. There must be someone who can take the appropriate action to show that this is a parallel situation to Nazism and Communism and make the appropriate things happen.
I actually believed that one of the after-effects of 9/11 would be the banning of further immigration from all Muslim countries. Boy was I ignorant. How could anyone have guessed that 9/11 would make a million Muslims lift up their man-jammies and scurry for America? Now that they are here, killing people at the Boston Marathon or shoe-bombing or car-bombing Times Square or revving up an Army base etc etc etc...Just how much mayhem will we have to sustain before we take decisive action???
ReplyDeleteSo why did we stop enforcing the communist control act?
ReplyDeleteWhy do we no longer have a house committee for un-American activities?
Does anyone know?
The founders did not bar a state church, they barred the federal government from imposing one. Many states did have established churches, there were battles over the right to worship freely. The Baptists literally had people go to jail in Virginia because the state established church was a different denomination. Today, Massachusetts still has a state church technically but it doesn't have any force.
ReplyDeleteDespite the first amendment why can we not ban islam? People pick and choose about the second ammendment all the time. "This type of firearm is okay but this type is too dangerous for civilians to own." Well, Islam is too dangerous for civilians to believe. A muslim man who just lost his job in Oklahoma beheaded a woman, Muslims in the UK tried to takeover the school systems (to spread sharia) these are both FACTUAL and if I felt like spending all night listing specefic examples, I could provide dozens. BAN THIS RELIGION IN THE USA! THank you!
ReplyDeleteThere are nine ways to stop the spread of Islam in the US. The more of these that we can impose, the better we'll be.
ReplyDelete1) Cut the money supply, support the Open Fuel Standard.
2) No follower of Islam can be a teacher or work anywhere in the school system.
3) No follower of Islam can hold political office.
4) No follower of Islam can work in law enforcement, including as judge or on a jury.
5) No follower of Islam can serve in the military or be a contractor.
6) There can be no new construction of Mosques or Islamic Centers.
7) Although the US Constitution Article VI paragraph two technically prohibits the use of Sharia law, an amendment should be passed to specifically prohibit Sharia law.
8) The production, sale, consumption, possession, distribution and importation of Halal certified food should be banned.
9) No follower of Islam can own a gun.
I'm not an American. However, I think you've misjudged slightly the original meaning of "religion" in that particular amendment. I think if you properly define the Judeo-Christian worldview a strong case could be made (but never accepted simply because your country is too far gone) that the framers of your constitution ASSUMED a Judeo-Christian worldview. I believe those comments were made in light of the factions primarily between the various factions of Christianity. The 1700's was a short step away from the original protestant reformation in the 1500's. No doubt there was plenty of oppression in England of various forms of Christianity that did not comply with the particular state-authorized version of Christianity. I've found Americans to generally be ignorant of the most important cultural contextual facts that moulded the mentality of the men to make these amendments. Most of those men likely had no idea what Islam was or Hinduism or Buddhism. They were concerned the state would not officially sanction a particular branch of Christianity. THAT is the point of that amendment. In our language today the term "religion" has taken on a very different meaning then it did when that was penned.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Sultan Knish... I guess that's what you're being addressed as here? My first time on your page. In reading the above posts I feel bad for you. It seems the brilliance of your sharp mind is lost amidst emotional silliness in some of these posts. I really appreciated your above article/statements. Very very well done. It was informative, well researched & well written. Excellent job. Keep up the good work. I'm impressed when I've been informed with thoughtful & persuasive presentation of important & pertinent points. I think I agree with everything you laid out above as far as I am understanding it correctly. In fact its sad that you are not being interviewed on news channels!? One point unrelated to your above article. I am a reasonably educated Christian and would like to clarify a fact regarding Christianity & Israel. The Christian church generally speaking is getting more and more "liberal". It is THIS reason there is less & less support in the USA for Israel. We Christians who support Israel do it because we read the Bible "both Covenants" as being supportive of the Jewish people. I can press and pin any Christian scholar with logical contradictions who claims that somehow Christian theology removes the Jewish people as God's chosen people or their right to reside in their land. It does not. Christian support for Israel comes from solid study of the Bible. However, as I stated above, because Christianity has become increasingly less interested in theological studies, support for Israel has consequently waned. The sort of rant I read attributed to "anonymous" is typical of the vague sorts of claims I've heard in the past from orthodox Jews. Sad. Sad because those sorts of people blindly propagate myths & consequently push away people like myself who genuinely love & support Israel.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment