What follows is a comment I attempted to post HERE. I'm not sure it will appear, because it was, in this form, longer than blogger would accept. When I pared it down and resubmitted, I got a strange error message along with the standard notice that it had been saved for moderation. We'll see if it appears, and if not I'll try again. Meanwhile, here you go: "If Islam were merely another religion, there would be little debate over the proposed mosque. Sadly, Islam is far from being just another faith. Religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and in practice, Islam is a system of government first - a brutal, militaristic, totalitarian system of government - and a religion - a government religion - second. Wherever it goes it insists on observing it's own law, and Islamic law runs contrary to the entire concept of individual liberty - including religious freedom - that we hold dear. Islam is the leading practitioner of slavery in the world today - first and foremost by intellectually enslaving all its followers, second by physically enslaving half its own (women) and third by physically enslaving all the subjugated in conquered lands. It is not just intolerant of all opposing views, it has a track record of brutally lethal violence against those views.
Just call them Dhimmicrats: in an expedience borne of mental illness, the left manifests a bizarre ease with radical Islam. The left's enemy is America, obviously, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend, right? Never mind what Islam has to say and do about leftist sacred cows such as aberrant sexual partnerships or women's rights. No worries there. As with all historical alliances with evil, this arrangement will work fine for them right up until it doesn't. Then, long past the point of no return, what they've known all along will be undeniable: with Islam, you're either at the table or you're on the menu. Of course, there's no room for others at the Islam's table, and Quisling makes a fine entree...
The argument that approximately 60% of Muslims are "lukewarm" is of little comfort, if one bothers with the obvious math: the remaining (approximate) 40% - the acknowledged fanatics and their ardent supporters - number somewhere north of 400 million. Beyond that, 600 million lukewarm followers (consent) are far more dangerous than 600 million standing united against the oppression (dissent). Western civilization cannot, as claimed above, prevail against 400 million enemy fanatics by "leading an exemplary life, as a true follower of Christ." It is at best naive to think that any group of humans can lead an exemplary life anyway. (We had a better chance at this than most, and look what we've done with it.) Then comes the obvious truth that there are times when such passivity is not just inappropriate, but immoral. As His crucifixion drew near, Christ himself admonished his disciples to buy swords, even if it meant selling their clothes. This is just such a time. Turning the other cheek accomplishes nothing beyond exposing the jugular. Christianity is not a suicide pact with evil, regardless of perverse insinuations to the contrary.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact either. It's actually quite the opposite. Only a jackass can claim to be honoring the First Amendment by welcoming practitioners of an enemy doctrine that spawns precisely the oppression it was written to prevent. It is not in any way contrary to the First Amendment to deny an oppressive state religion a foothold in America.
This is the difference between being legalistic, which we see everywhere these days, and being moral, which we hardly see at all. Any nation can write laws (they all do) but very few have ever produced a legitimately moral code. We did, and that's what once set us apart. America was built on that moral code, by the controlled immigration of people who wanted to actively live by that code and enjoy the freedom it produced. Quotas were set, and the importation of our enemies was once recognized for the madness it is. Such people came here, of course, but if they hated the place or couldn't make it, they mostly went back home. If they stayed, it meant they had found some measure of success and had succumbed to societal pressure to become part of things. No more. The notion that immigrants should assimilate has been replaced by a cowardly willingness to let them annihilate. Now we not only import the hostile, we look the other way as millions more sneak in. Once here, we educate them, subsidize them, build them foot baths at our airports and pretend it's OK that they impose themselves and their dark ways at any place and in every place, including ground zero.
It's not OK. Not at all.
Islam is not our greatest threat. Legalistic acceptance of the oppression it represents is what frightens me. I dread what's coming in America. With all the legalistic thinkers among us, embracing one form of oppression or another, we're gonna need real blind luck to avoid ushering in another police state after the current one collapses.
III
FPG"
Posts
Argentina: Mises and Milei, 65 Years Apart
9 hours ago
2 comments:
The problem is our government selectively enforcing our laws. If immigration law was followed we would not have as many illegal immigrants in this country and the immigrants we would have would have a better appreciation of our country.
The issue of the ground zero mosque has been clearly ginned up to divide the people. For Hitler it was the Jews and now for the USA it is the Muslims. Ooooh don't look now that evil Muslim is coming to get you and soon all American women will be wearing burkas and walking 10 ft behind their husband along with his other wives. This is just fear mongering and is playing right into the hands of TPTB. The largest share holder of FOX news is one of the people funding the Mosque. I mean come on and this is all happening at the same time the drum beat for Iran is becoming deafening. If you believe in the 1st amendment then you should know that it is the speech you detest the most that must be protected or we all loose. The same goes for private property rights. But I guess if it is an evil Muslim then property rights be damned. Besides was it Islam that attacked us on 9/11? Freedom comes at a price and that price sometime means being offended or having to listen to a religious freak spout off. So what I am happy to be offended if that means everyone has a right to speak.
Thanks for the comments. I understand what you're saying and am also dismayed at the drum beat for Iran and the obvious contrived nature of this debate.
The members of the Greek Orthodox church at that site have been rebuffed in every attempt to get permission to rebuild their church. THEIR property rights were abridged by our government. It is a further affront that our government rolled out the red carpet for the mosque. The First Amendment was written to prevent the establishment of a state religion and to guarantee the free practice of the religion of one's choice.
But those words mean your protections are limited to when you actually practice a religion.
Such is far from the case here. Religion and government are joint tenants in Islam. In practice, Islam is, first and foremost a system of government. It is a violently oppressive totalitarian government at that. Islam is entirely at odds with the concept of individual liberty that is at both America's foundation, and at the core of the First Amendment.
It is only decades of deliberate misconstruction of the Bill of Rights that makes today's confusion possible. We already have a government, and it is not an affront to the First Amendment to deny a hostile competing government a foothold in America. This hostile government is openly calling for the destruction of all the protections we enjoy under our system. It is an accepted tenet that our rights end at the tip of our neighbors nose. Islam's view of "rights" dictate that if someone's nose is in the way, it is acceptable to cut it off. Our laws, and more specifically our interpretation of them, have no claim to morality or legitimacy if they cannot protect us from such a menace.
Next, I see nothing in the First Amendment that indicates any religion is entitled to build a church at any address they please. There are already dozens of mosques in NYC, so their First Amendment rights are hardly suffering if they are denied a permit at this particular address.
Lastly, I would point out that it would be entirely reasonable to audit all Islamic 501(c)3 entities, with an eye to establishing both the sources and the disposition of all funding. Whether the funds are used for religious, as opposed to political or military purposes is central to their tax exempt status. If funds are channeled to political and military purposes (and we know they are) then it would be proper (and entirely legal) to revoke their tax-exempt status, tax the hell out of them and treat them as a hostile foreign power under our criminal statutes. Property seizures and deportations to follow...
The power to audit such entities already exists. While they may cry "profiling" I see no reason to divert attention from Muslims until such time as Missouri Synod Lutherans are planting roadside IED's at ELCA churches for being too liberal, or some similar nonsense.
Post a Comment