The laws are already in place to deal with Islam.
1) preaching the stoning to death of apostates is against the First Amendment protection for Freedom of Speech/Conscience
2) preaching the stoning of gays is a hate crime
3) preaching the subjugation of women, wherein women are deemed to be the property of men, is slavery
4) preaching Jihad against the Infidel is sedition
5) preaching the use of Zakat as a part of the fundamental economic system of the United States is a violation of the First Amendment separation of Church and State.
6) Preaching a Dhimmi Tax is racketeering
If we were to, as a nation, acknowledge all these violations of law and enforce the laws together, we could close any Mosque in the United States which preached any of these fundamental tenets of Islam.
Acknowledging the reality of how these tenets function together would mean we could shut every mosque in the United States which is financially or ideologically related to any other mosque which also preaches these tenets. RICO allows for us to do that.
If we took our laws seriously, we would not have to add a Constitutional Amendment to do away with Islam.
Islam has not invented new evil. It has, however, institutionalized evil and given evil the "legitimacy" afforded to a major religion.
Islam advocates murder, it advocates slavery, and it advocates sedition.
Imagine if another powerful institution in the United States did these things.
Imagine for instance, that Fox News decided to start advocating the stoning to death of Muslims.
Imagine that Fox News systematically endorsed the enforced second-class citizenship of Muslims (in the manner of what Muslims do to women).
Imagine if Fox News said that non-Muslims owned Muslims, and Muslims could only marry, go to school, leave the house, drive, if permitted to do so by a non-Muslim.
Imagine if Fox News Chief Rupert Murdoch advocated that Muslims should not be allowed to show their faces in public, and directed all his news outlets to teach that a Muslim's voice was only worth half that of a non-Muslim in any legal manner.
Imagine if Fox News systematically, as a matter of Corporate Policy, advocated the Jihad-type murder of Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity or be subjugated as Dhimmis.
Would the United States Government not rightly intervene if a powerful institution were to advocate such ideas as a matter of top-down policy? Would not such an Institution, be it Academic, Media Outlet, Religion, or Governmental Entity, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
So it ought to be with Islam. Advocating murder, slavery, and war against ones fellow countrymen as a matter of policy ought to be quite enough to prove that Islam is in violation of the laws of the United States. We do not need to come up with new laws to cover old crimes. And, we should never succumb to the lie that a religion ought to be afforded any leniency in advocating crime, simply because it is a religion.
26 comments:
Pastorius,
I agree with you, and this would avoid any constitutional or civil rights issues, as long as the police don't violate anyone's civil liberties trying to enforce the law. However, even than, it will be minor compared to alternative approaches, and we have to do something to stop the Islamization of America, not to mention the west in general.
Just a few points:
1. Only the government can violate the First Amendment (or any other Amendment except the Constitutional provision against slavery/forced labor). So, when private people preach stoning of apostates and gays, they are not breaking a law unless the speech leads to an imminent change in the listener's behavior. In fact, in absence of a change in behavior by those hearing the speech, the speaker's speech is protected by the First Amendment.
2. Preaching the subjugation of women or enslavement of the infidel is protected by the First Amendment. However, taking action to actually enslave someone is not.
3. Preaching jizya or dhimmi tax is protected. Attempting to collect it through threats, coercion, blackmail, etc... are criminal violations.
4. Preaching Zakat as a part of the United States' economic system is protected by the First Amendment. Actually trying to use the government in order to compel Zakat would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Let's not minimize this issue. There are laws that deal with some of the objectionable aspects of Islam and/or Sharia. But, more laws are needed to deal with this metastasizing threat that is a relative newcomer to our shores and legal and political systems.
I think Anonymous' points are valid. However, it seems pretty clear to me that we would tolerate no such proposals from any other major social institution in our nation.
That's why I offered Fox/News Corp. by way of comparison.
If Fox/News Corp. was proposing the same kinds of ideas, targeting another group of people like this, we would certainly, as a society, come down on Fox with a hammer blow.
Do you disagree with that?
Another point, Anonymous, to the extent that News Corp. does function on public airwaves, I believe they could be deemed to be violating the First Amendment by advocating the murder of Apostates.
Nonetheless, if I have that wrong, it is pretty clear we would allow no major media outlet to advocate the murder of an entire group of people.
If FoxNews advocated the murder of apostates on the public airwaves, then it may be in violation of of some statute or FCC regulation. But, FoxNews would not violate the First Amendment by calling for the murder or death of apostates.
"BAN RITUAL SLAUGHTER" .. you just took out Judiasm as well
I could be operating under a false assumption. Does not the First Amendment cover Freedom of Conscience?
The First Amendment limits governmental power. Individuals cannot violate the First Amendment. Private entities cannot violate the First Amendment.
Here is an example of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech:
1. Anonymous poster offends the IBA's Pastorious with incoherent rants and mean-spirited attack on President Obama in the comments section. However, nothing illegal was done or said. It was just a troll being a troll.
2 (a). Pastorious, as private citizen, removes troll's nonsense. No First Amendment violation.
2 (b). Flag-at-Whitehouse-dot-gov picks up that Obama is being trashed and uses electronic wizardry beyond my comprehension to remove the offending comment. First Amendment violation.
Yes, but I am talking about a major media corporation using the public airwaves to violate the First Amendment rights of a whole group of people, by threatening to murder them for exercising their Freedom of Conscience.
I think you are answering my question according to your Conservative ideals, rather than how these issues are actually dealt with.
Is that possible?
I am not interjecting my personal philosophy. I am only trying to explain to you how the law works.
The MSM does not become a government actor and therefore subject to the First Amendment just because it is a big entity with a large viewership and a nationwide reach. The MSM may be subject to laws and FCC regs that limit what they can broadcast, but they cannot violate the First Amendment unless they are somehow government actors.
Super Samson -- Epaminondas IS Jewish, you arrogant ass.
But don't let the rest of us woefully misguided gentiles stand in your way.
Samson, SPEAK OF ASSUMPTION....
you can call me Melech Pincus Hakohane
Kosher slaughtering of animals as 'licensed' by othrodox rabbis I have known IS ABSOLUTELY not unlike halal slaughtering I have witnessed.
Worse than that, and far more importantly you also just took out VOODOO.
BTW, I am not orthodox, but no matter how TINY they might be in your mind (I am SURE SEN LIEBERMAN WOULD DISAGREE SINCE HE IS ONE) ... thinking for an instant it is MORE IMPORTANT to damage one religion by harming another 'tiny' one might be one of the more breathtakingly unamerican things I have seen posted posted here.
It is NO DIFFERENT than tossing the Bahai's into the garbage in the mind of many takfir minded muslims.
Non-Jews can not have an opinion on Jewish issues?!?
What Tribalistic nonsense.
Any idea which can not be expressed in words, is not a coherent idea.
Any idea which can not be expressed in words is either illogical or purely sensual in nature. If it is purely sensual in nature, then as pleasant as it might be to you, it is base, and not worthy of exalting as an attribute which lends you pride in your tribe.
If there is a coherent Judaism, or Jewish culture, it would be express-able in words. Your argument that it is something that can only be shared "between the brothers" (for that is the notion you put forth, in so many words) is laughable, and smacks of something very close to the kinds of arguments I hear from White Supremacists.
By the way, I'm not saying you are the equivalent of a White Supremacist. It may be, simply, that you have not thought through your ideas very well. And honestly, that is what it sounds like to me.
Did Super Samson take his ball and go home?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7TGlcHy3ug
Epa,
Yes, I think he might have done just that.
So, uh, what do you want to do now? I mean, we have no ball to play with.
Let's go set something on fire.
;-)
Post a Comment