[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid

Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye

Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge

Jewish Land Grab

Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner

Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release

AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women

What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination

Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author

Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own.

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room

Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister

Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals

German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human'


Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Making Islam Illegal -- Is It The West's Only Choice?
Source: www.renewamerica.us
URL Source: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/060219
Published: Feb 19, 2006
Author: Warner Todd Huston
Post Date: 2006-02-20 11:28:07 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: Illegal, Choice?, Making
Views: 1061
Comments: 108

Making Islam Illegal -- Is It The West's Only Choice?

Warner Todd Huston February 19, 2006

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.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

#7. To: Mind_Virus (#0)

Gee the bullshit just keeps coming..

Zipporah  posted on  2006-02-20   12:37:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Zipporah (#7)

What B.S. are you talking about? Banning a religion or banning certain practices of a religion.? Sorry i'm not following your reference.

There are basic tenets of Islam which, if lived out, would destroy every other religion/philosophy/culture which isn't it. This is Allah's will and explicit command. Bottom line is that Isalm as taught by its founder, mohammed, is seditious is the truest sense of the word. Also, the pracitce, again with mohammed as the example and law-giver, of multiple wives and sex slavery cannot be tolerated in western cultures so that a muslim is prohibed by non-islamic laws from fully practicing their religion. True beliver-muslims cannot tolerate being dominated by another religious or nonreligious system. The hateful sharia laws are another example of islamic religion that cannot be allowed in western cultures.

That being said, it only muddies the conversation to point out that we dropped napalm on asia villiages and as a nation support a thoroughly wicked government who has done/is doing dispicable things to muslims and others all over the world. One more thing, not all muslims, as we all know, are true believers and wish to live under the restrictions and insanity of islam but are unwilling to shed themselves of their islamic identity. Live and let such people live just as we do the deluded warmongering fundamentalist christians who want to take over the government, but haven't yet resorted to violence that i'm aware of. Freedom of thought, not always freedom of action is the american way.

fatidic  posted on  2006-02-20   13:01:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: fatidic (#10)

What B.S. are you talking about? Banning a religion or banning certain practices of a religion.? Sorry i'm not following your reference.

There are basic tenets of Islam which, if lived out, would destroy every other religion/philosophy/culture which isn't it. This is Allah's will and explicit command. Bottom line is that Isalm as taught by its founder, mohammed, is seditious is the truest sense of the word. Also, the pracitce, again with mohammed as the example and law-giver, of multiple wives and sex slavery cannot be tolerated in western cultures so that a muslim is prohibed by non-islamic laws from fully practicing their religion. True beliver-muslims cannot tolerate being dominated by another religious or nonreligious system. The hateful sharia laws are another example of islamic religion that cannot be allowed in western cultures.

That being said, it only muddies the conversation to point out that we dropped napalm on asia villiages and as a nation support a thoroughly wicked government who has done/is doing dispicable things to muslims and others all over the world. One more thing, not all muslims, as we all know, are true believers and wish to live under the restrictions and insanity of islam but are unwilling to shed themselves of their islamic identity. Live and let such people live just as we do the deluded warmongering fundamentalist christians who want to take over the government, but haven't yet resorted to violence that i'm aware of. Freedom of thought, not always freedom of action is the american way.

The bullshit that I'm talking about is this.. The propaganda about Islam is at a fever's pitch.. You could say close to the same thing about Christianity.. What this article espouses is absolutely against our Constitution.. if we don't defend the right of others to practice their religion ..then whose next??

I suggest reading this article from Robert Fisk regarding the anti-Islam propaganda:

Robert Fisk: "Muhammad Cartoons" - Anti-Islam Propaganda by jo swift at 08:37PM (CET) on February 6, 2006 | Permanent Link | Cosmos DON'T BE FOOLED, THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE OF ISLAM VERSUS SECULARISM

So now it's cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb-shaped turban.

Ambassadors are withdrawn from Denmark, Gulf nations clear their shelves of Danish produce, Gaza gunmen threaten the European Union.

In Denmark, Fleming Rose, the "culture" editor of the pip-squeak newspaper which published these silly cartoons - last September, for heaven's sake - announces that we are witnessing a "clash of civilisations" between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies.

This does prove, I suppose, that Danish journalists follow in the tradition of Hans Christian Anderson. Oh lordy, lordy. What we're witnessing is the childishness of civilisations.

So let's start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam.

For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves.

The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea's "long, withdrawing roar".

That's why we talk about "the West versus Islam" rather than "Christians versus Islam" - because there aren't an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.

Besides, we can exercise our own hypocrisy over religious feelings. I happen to remember how, more than a decade ago, a film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman. In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man.

I also happen to remember a US university which invited me to give a lecture three years ago. I did. It was entitled "September 11, 2001: ask who did it but, for God's sake, don't ask why".

When I arrived, I found that the university had deleted the phrase "for God's sake" because "we didn't want to offend certain sensibilities". Ah-ha, so we have "sensibilities" too.

In other words, while we claim that Muslims must be good secularists when it comes to free speech - or cheap cartoons - we can worry about adherents to our own precious religion just as much.

I also enjoyed the pompous claims of European statesmen that they cannot control free speech or newspapers. This is also nonsense.

Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had "anti-Semitism" screamed into our ears - and rightly so - just as we often hear the Israelis complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in Egyptian newspapers.

Furthermore, in some European nations - France is one, Germany and Austria are among the others - it is forbidden by law to deny acts of genocide.

In France, for example, it is illegal to say that the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Holocaust did not happen. So it is, in fact, impermissable to make certain statements in European nations.

I'm still uncertain whether these laws attain their objectives; however much you may prescribe Holocaust denial, anti-Semites will always try to find a way round.

We can hardly exercise our political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.

For many Muslims, the "Islamic" reaction to this affair is an embarrassment. There is good reason to believe that Muslims would like to see some element of reform introduced to their religion.

If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only caused reaction.

And this is not a great time to heat up the old Samuel Huntingdon garbage about a "clash of civilisations". Iran now has a clerical government again.

So, to all intents and purposes, does Iraq (which was not supposed to end up with a democratically elected clerical administration, but that's what happens when you topple dictators).

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Now we have Hamas in charge of "Palestine".

There's a message here, isn't there? That America's policies - "regime change" in the Middle East - are not achieving their ends. These millions of voters were preferring Islam to the corrupt regimes which we imposed on them.

For the Danish cartoon to be dumped on top of this fire is dangerous indeed.

In any event, it's not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do.

The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?

Zipporah  posted on  2006-02-20   13:08:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Zipporah (#11)

Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had "anti-Semitism" screamed into our ears - and rightly so - just as we often hear the Israelis complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in Egyptian newspapers.

Zip, i hope you can see what evidently Fisk did not as illustrated by his quote above, and that is that the anti-semitic screaming of jews to cartoons of ridicule is by order of magnitude a different response than the islamic response of blood-letting and property-destroying violence all over the world! Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.

Now, i will have to continue this conversation later tonight as i have much work to do. Cheers.

fatidic  posted on  2006-02-20   15:56:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: fatidic (#39)

Zip, i hope you can see what evidently Fisk did not as illustrated by his quote above, and that is that the anti-semitic screaming of jews to cartoons of ridicule is by order of magnitude a different response than the islamic response of blood-letting and property-destroying violence all over the world! Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.

Now, i will have to continue this conversation later tonight as i have much work to do. Cheers.

What Fisk left out is that those people would be in jail if they lived in the EU.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-02-20   16:06:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Zipporah (#41)

What Fisk left out is that those people would be in jail if they lived in the EU.

And rightly so. Lawbreakers should be punished even if they claim their god made them do it. Just as if jews try to stone an adultress and claim religious exemption from murder, they should be held to account by the laws of the land. And if mormons practice polygamy or jehovah's witnesses refuse life-saving blood transfusions to their children, they all should be held to account for the laws they are breaking.

But back to the subject of islam being a religion that has an unusally high number of requirements/tenets that put them at odds with western civilization (deeply flawed though it is), what purpose is served by avoiding this conclusion?

fatidic  posted on  2006-02-20   19:26:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: fatidic (#43)

And rightly so. Lawbreakers should be punished even if they claim their god made them do it. Just as if jews try to stone an adultress and claim religious exemption from murder, they should be held to account by the laws of the land. And if mormons practice polygamy or jehovah's witnesses refuse life-saving blood transfusions to their children, they all should be held to account for the laws they are breaking.

But back to the subject of islam being a religion that has an unusally high number of requirements/tenets that put them at odds with western civilization (deeply flawed though it is), what purpose is served by avoiding this conclusion?

So you advocate thought police? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Now it's one thing regarding the issue of minors and their health.. but quite another regarding policing what people think.

What is your purpose in believing that the Constitution should be ignored? Are you in agreement with what Bush said in regard to it? Where does it stop? Buddism is at odds with western thought.. what about Judaism?? What of Shintoism? What of any of dozens of other religions? Where does it end? Once the Pandora's box is opened it can't be closed again.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-02-20   19:45:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Zipporah (#48)

Where did you read that i'm in favor of thought control police? I thought i was consistent and clear in speaking of the harm that comes from practicing, (that's an overt act, doncha know?) a religious tenet that violates the law and the constitution. I've never written, nor has the thought even entered my mind that we should prevent people from thinking and believing what they want (unlike allah's forbidding that a human has the right to follow ones conscience--just had to throw this pesky fact in the sentence).

What did i write that made you think that i think the constitution should be ignored??--i am dylexic you know, so it's possible i turned my words inside out.

fatidic  posted on  2006-02-20   20:00:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: fatidic (#54)

Possibly I'm misundestanding what your position is.. what exactly is it that you are advocating?

Zipporah  posted on  2006-02-20   20:02:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 56.

#66. To: Zipporah (#56)

Possibly I'm misundestanding what your position is.. what exactly is it that you are advocating?

Now you're talking to me, zip, finally after all these exchanges.

My position is pretty much that the crumbled cookie should speak for itself, though i deplore using facts as weapons of destruction. I believe in the whole truth being sought as a foundation for our understanding and actions, tempered by the golden rule. My values are fully informed by my understanding of the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and i am growing in my understanding and ability to apply godly truths.

I believe in and deeply love the Constitution and the God of the Bible and am zealous to defend both against all enemies--my weapons being words only. I try not to be a hypocrite and to be fair and accurate. So i can truly say, back to islam, that i can love muslims but deeply hate their religion but would defend to the death their right to self-determination, a right which they would fight to the death to deny me (it's not personal, understand) if they practiced their religion as taught by mohammed (many do you know).

P.S. hope you're not turned off of by the word "hate" as in "hate what God hates and love what God loves" you know from the Bible.

fatidic  posted on  2006-02-20 20:27:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]