'cookieChoices = {};'

"Anyone can act presidential. "
It's a lot harder to do what I do.


Monday, August 29, 2011

How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?

LIVING AMONG US, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen — and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacists — all call themselves "Muslims."
Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions.

In fact, the "extremists" are not any more "extreme" than
the many devout followers of other religions. The difference is that the teachings devout Muslims follow are more definitively hostile toward non-followers than any other mainstream religion's teachings.

So we are in a quandary, and so are the innocents who call themselves Muslims (but who ignore or are unaware of
Islam's intolerant teachings). We don't want to make the mistake of overgeneralizing and becoming hostile to someone just because he says he's a Muslim. But we don't want to support or encourage or befriend a Muslim who is following the teachings of the Koran because it says it's okay to pretend to be a non-Muslim's friend, but to never actually be their friend, and it says "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." These are not the beliefs or motivations we want in a friend, or in someone we invite home to dinner, or even in someone we speak freely with.

We know how to deal with orthodox Muslims who are actively pushing for concessions from the West, but what about in our personal lives? Should we live in suspicion of all Muslims? Should we automatically hate someone we know is a Muslim? Would you want to live that way? No, probably not. Should you ignore what you know about Islamic doctrine and treat everyone the same? That doesn't seem sensible either.

We're in a real quandary, and so are heterodox Muslims who have rejected the worst of Muhammad's teachings.

Our difficulty can be resolved with a simple change in our personal policy. We can consistently treat the Muslims among us a particular way and it will solve our problem and hopefully bring this issue into the light of day where we can reasonably deal with it like adults.

Before I describe the personal policy I advocate, I need to clarify something. An "innocent Muslim," or what has often been called a "moderate Muslim" would necessarily have to reject jihad except in the sense of a "personal inner struggle." That would be a Muslim who rejects (or is unaware of)
97 percent of the references to jihad in the Hadith. For a Muslim to be truly innocent, she or he must reject (or be ignorant of) much of the "sacred" example of Muhammad, which means rejecting (or being unaware of) the 91 passages in the Koran that tell Muslims to follow Muhammad's example.

An innocent Muslim must also reject (or is unaware of) the
intolerance, hatred, and violence toward non-Muslims in the Koran. And an innocent Muslim would reject (or be ignorant of) the subordinated position of women in Islamic doctrine.

For any non-Muslim who has studied Islamic doctrine, the above description is a reasonable starting point for a Muslim we can welcome in our midst.

What brought this up was reflecting over the last ten years. We started
citizenwarrior.com in 2001, about a month after 9/11. And in that time, we've heard from hundreds of Muslims, all of them arguing that we don't know what we're talking about because "true Islam" is peaceful and tolerant.

In all that time, we have never heard from a Muslim — not once — that acknowledged the existence of the immense number of passages in the Koran that non-Muslims find disagreeable — passages that anyone with an IQ over 70 could understand are disagreeable to non-Muslims. And not once have any these Muslims acknowledged the existence of
the egregious example of Muhammad — an example anyone with the slightest amount of human empathy would understand might be offensive or even frightening to non-Muslims.

What we've heard again and again was that it's all taken out of context, and that the terrorists have it all wrong and nobody else except the terrorists believe in or follow such teachings, or the teachings don't exist.

Over the years we've come across a very small number of genuinely jihad-rejecting Muslims, like
Tawfik Hamid. And of course, if someone genuinely rejects the hatred, political ambition and calls to violence in Islamic doctrine, they don't complain to us about what we write here on Citizen Warrior. They don't have a problem with criticism of Islamic doctrine (they are strong critics of the doctrine themselves).

But after rejecting so much of Islam (given our definition of an "innocent Muslim" above), even Muslims have a hard time understanding why such a person would call himself a "Muslim," but who are we to say how any person should define himself?

Okay, so our situation is that we don't know how to treat the Muslims in our midst, and the "innocent Muslims" don't know how to identify themselves as "jihad-rejecting Muslims." Here is the solution: We should stop coddling the innocent Muslims and start being very matter-of-fact about our situation. We need to stop talking around this issue. We need to stop avoiding the source of the problem. We need to deal with Muslims forthrightly with this attitude: "You either firmly reject jihad or we must assume you embrace it. It is counterproductive for everyone for us to bend over backwards trying to prove how tolerant we are."

If Muslims want to be welcomed into this society, they need to start standing up and making their voices heard. They must openly acknowledge and unambiguously and categorically reject the hatred, misogyny, and violence in their core doctrines, or we must assume they don't.

Many of us are reading their source books. We know the doctrine. We would be foolish not to assume a Muslim believes in Islamic doctrine. So it is up to
Muslims to tell us they do not believe in that doctrine, and to say specifically which parts of the doctrine they do not endorse.

What got me thinking about this was
an article by Christopher Hitchens who said that Governor Mitt Romney (a Mormon) firmly stated "that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution."

Why did Romney feel he needed to say that? Because many of us are aware of Mormon doctrine. So he openly reassured us as to where his loyalties lay.

Have you ever heard a Muslim do this? And yet Muslims are in a worse situation. They experience far more suspicion and hostility in our society than Mormons. But rather than doing what Romney did, what do Muslims do? Usually they blame
us for the suspicion and hostility, and imply the problem is our lack of "tolerance."

So here's the situation: We've become aware of Islamic doctrine and we don't like it, so we naturally wonder where the Muslims among us stand, and instead of saying, "We acknowledge the intolerance and violence of our core doctrines, and we reject them totally," they tend to open up with hostility, and so deepen our suspicions. The hostility and finger-pointing and the avoidance of honesty are exactly what we would expect from someone who
believes in the supremacist, intolerant teachings of Islam.

And weak, vague assurances are not good enough. "
We reject the killing of innocents" doesn't work any more because too many of us know already that nowhere in the Koran does it imply non-Muslims are innocent. It implies just the opposite.

Muslims need to be clear and explicit, and
we need to demand that of them without apology. From a non-Muslim's perspective, our open demand for honesty is a rational response to the facts, and nothing to be embarrassed about.

We need to make it clear what someone must do to be welcome in this society if they call themselves a Muslim. And we need to be clear that our "tough-love" attitude toward them is a sane response to what we know of their ideology.


Imagine you were putting an avowed communist in charge of the Federal Reserve. You wouldn't do it without very firm assurances from him that he
completely rejects the economic model of communism. You have to demand that assurance because you are familiar with the basic tenets of the communist ideology.

You have to assume when someone says he's a communist that he believes in the communist ideology. It's an assumption we can take for granted. Otherwise, what does it mean to say you're a communist?

That's what it means: That you believe in the communist ideology.

Same with Islam: You say you're a Muslim. That means you believe in Islam's ideology. Fine. I am familiar with Islam's teachings. And no, I don't want you running the country or involved in law enforcement or teaching my children or writing textbooks or working in counterterrorism or joining the military, unless you can assure me about what parts of that ideology you reject. This should be plain common sense, but of course, it only makes sense to someone who is familiar with the Islamic ideology.

If you assume it is impossible for a religion to advocate intolerance, supremacism, mysogyny and violence to non-believers, this policy and this attitude would not make sense. If you assume the teachings of any religion could be used to justify anything, it would not make sense to you either. But if you are a non-Muslim and you've read the Koran, you know what I'm talking about.

Others are coming to the same conclusion, and I've seen many more direct challenges to Muslims who say they are moderate. They are being asked pointed questions like, "Do you repudiate what Hamas is doing?" and "I am a Buddhist; do you consider me a kafir?" and they're asked to sign
the Freedom Pledge and if they won't sign it, they are asked why they won't. These are steps in the right direction.

But more interviewers need to become educated enough about Islam that they can ask stronger, more specific questions. And this challenge needs to become incessant from all of us, everywhere. Muslims must be made to face the discomfort. They must realize they have to come right out and say, "Yes, there is a political agenda in Islam, and I completely reject it" or they will not be welcomed or trusted (or invited to any "interfaith dialogs for peace and understanding").

For someone who is unfamiliar with Islamic doctrine, all this would sound terrible and unfair, but we would do the same for any person who openly declared their endorsement of a seditious or treasonous or intolerant or violent ideology and who wanted to live among us as equals.


There are three reasons Muslims are reluctant to say what parts of Islamic doctrine they reject:
1. It says in the Islamic doctrine they can't reject any part of the Islamic doctrine.

2. They fear for their lives. According to Islamic doctrine, the penalty for apostasy is death. They might also merely fear to be ostracized by their community. Heterodoxy, even if not accompanied by the death penalty, can be socially penalized severely in Muslim communities.

3. They don't reject it. They are going along with the Western society program until Muslims have greater political strength, at which time, they will start applying the political, supremacist teachings of Islam. This approach must be fairly common, given the patterns of modern Islamization.

It would take a very brave person, even if he was truly a jihad rejector, to volunteer an admission of apostasy. We must, in a sense, force their hand and then help protect jihad rejectors from reprisals.

This issue must be forced into the open or we will continue to suffer in a confused and paralyzed limbo while orthodox Muslims paint all of us into a corner (the non-Muslims and jihad-rejecting Muslims alike) by continuing their Islamization of the West.


a video profiling three American Muslims, who all presented themselves as regular American citizens, the Muslims seemed baffled as to why non-Muslims might look at them suspiciously, but they also seemed equally self-righteous about how silly and misguided that is, and not one of these American Muslims mentioned the supremacism and intolerance at the core of their doctrines. Worse, they acted as if no such doctrines exist. They acted as if such a notion was preposterous.

One of the women in the video even pointed out that believers of other religions don't get this kind of scrutiny or prejudice. I wanted to tell her, "That's right. It's been a long time since anyone worried about the Amish rioting, beheading people, infiltrating governments, threatening violence to silence their critics, changing the contents of public school textbooks, or blowing up buses.
Ideology actually counts."

We don't have a situation where religions are all the same but one is being picked on unfairly. We have a situation where most religions share many principles about universal love and kindness, but Islam does not. According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people and deserve to suffer in this life and burn in the afterlife.

One Muslim man in the video implied that if only people could get to know him and his family, their suspicions would disappear. I wanted to tell him, "Whether or not your family members are personable is not what concerns us. We wonder whether you believe in jihad in any form. We wonder if you pay your
zakat and thus potentially fund suicide bombers. We wonder if you participate in CAIR or ISNA or any of the other Muslim organizations under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood and we wonder if you've aligned yourself with the Brotherhood's goal to sabotage and undermine our government. We wonder if you believe in reverse integration and if you're striving in the way of Allah to Islamize America. We wonder if you follow the Koranic teachings to never make friends with non-Muslims — to go ahead and fake it, but never actually befriend them or like them."

If he is actively working toward
Islam's prime directive, no amount of "getting to know him and his family" will matter. What might matter is if he acknowledged those teachings and told us he rejected them. That would at least be a start. But in the video, which would make any PR hack proud, you hear nothing that even approaches that level of honesty.

If these American Muslims are really so baffled, they should read their own doctrines. And if they have read them, their "bafflement" is a deceit because anyone reading the Koran or Muhammad's words and deeds would not be baffled in the slightest. It would be obvious what non-Muslims don't like about it.

Why does it matter? These Muslims are not a threat to national security, are they? Why not let them continue in their innocence?
Because they are having children, and in a recent study in Britain, researchers found that second-generation Muslims are more "radical" than their immigrant parents. That is, they hold more orthodox views. In other words, they believe in Islam's prime directive. They are more committed to jihad than their first-generation parents.

Why would this be? Because of what I'm harping on: All these "perfectly nice Muslims" in the video are raising their children without ever telling them that supremacist and intolerant teachings are strewn throughout the Koran and Sunna, and without saying, "but we completely reject those teachings." No, they say nothing of the sort. They do just the opposite. They tell them being a Muslim is wonderful, that the Koran is the word of the Almighty, and that Muslims are being unfairly persecuted by non-Muslims around the world.

So our young Muslim grows up alienated from his surrounding culture and ignorant of Islamic doctrine and yet considering it an elemental foundation of his identity that he is a Muslim. This makes him fairly easy to recruit by devout Muslims who simply tell the kid to read the Koran and discover
his obligations as a Muslim. The teenager is only too eager to see his parents as hypocrites, and becomes a devout Muslim, committed to jihad like it says in the Koran he is supposed to be. The result: Second-generation Muslims are more radical than their immigrant parents.

Another video, this one produced by teenaged American Muslims, who clearly have no clue about the doctrines of their own religion, yet feel self-righteously justified in vilifying non-Muslims who know more about their own religious doctrines than they do: The End of Islamophobia.


In an article entitled,
Why 'Islamophobia' is Less Thinly Veiled in Europe, the author, Robert Marquand, writes, "In university settings and among some Muslim moderates, frank reappraisals of the Koran are under way, which includes a tougher look at its calls for militancy." He presented this fact as if it should put all our worries to rest.

Some Muslims are taking a tougher look? That is not a big relief. Islamic doctrines are clear, straightforward, and easy to find. They don't need to be "looked at" — they have been looked at, studied, memorized, clarified, and analyzed for 1400 years. And they were pretty clear and straightforward to begin with. They don't need to be looked at. They need to be vociferously repudiated, explicitly and forcefully.

Violent and intolerant teachings in Islamic doctrine are not superfluous addendum that can be easily discarded; they are embedded deep in the core of Islam throughout its doctrine and throughout its history. And orthodox Muslims are acting on these passages all over the world, killing people, destroying property, wrecking lives, and worming their way into positions of power. They're doing it right now, today.

Someone will die today because of these doctrines. By any definition, the situation is urgent. A "tougher look" doesn't cut it. Not even close. Does Marquand really think we can all relax now because some Muslim intellectuals at a few universities are taking a "tougher look?" He must be joking.

Marquand quotes Ahmet Mahamat, an immigrant from Chad who lives in France. Mahamat said, "Immigrants are linked to criminality or delinquency or fanaticism." He meant "linked in peoples' prejudiced minds." Poor Mahamat. We are supposed to feel sorry for him. But I wanted to tell him to suck it up and prove people wrong, just like every immigrant group before him has had to do.

Almost everywhere, when immigrants arrive on foreign shores, they face prejudice. And if they work hard and prove themselves loyal members of that society, they are eventually accepted and embraced.

That's how it works. You want to be on our team? Then prove yourself worthy. We don't owe you anything. We've already let you move here — the rest is up to you. If anything, you owe us.

But Mahamat is pursuing the example of Muhammad the Whiner. "I look in the eyes of so many people," he says, "and what I see does not correspond to who I am. They see another me."

I want to tell him, "Look, Mahamat, we know
the ideology you supposedly believe in. You say you're a Muslim. We naturally assume you believe in Islam. We assume you are an adherent of Islamic doctrine, which would mean you believe in the supremacism and intolerance inherent in your ideology. Either stop calling yourself a Muslim or explicitly say, 'I reject jihad, I reject Muhammad's political, supremacist model, and I embrace Western values of freedom, women's rights, religious equality, etc.' It took me all of ten seconds to say that, so what's the problem? If you can't honestly say those things, then our suspicions are correct, so quit your whining and get used to permanent rejection because you do not belong in this society."


When you know something about an ideology, you treat the person differently,
and you should. You don't feed a Jain a steak dinner when they come to your house (Jains believe you should not kill any living creature). You don't invite a Buddhist with you on a deer hunt (Buddhists refrain from harming living beings).

If you know about someone's ideology, you usually will (and definitely should) treat them differently.

And in the same way, if someone's ideology calls for unrelenting jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law, generally speaking, you don't invite them to come live in your country and bring their wives. And if they are already in your country, you usually will (and definitely should) be wary of them until they prove their devotion and loyalty to your country and the principles your society is founded on.

This should be common sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, your first step should be to
take the pledge and read the Koran.

For those who unevasively reject jihad in their speech and action, we should treat them like anyone else. No better, no worse.

I know many will think, "I don't care what they
say. They could be lying." And of course that's true. But this is the place to start. The next step is to see if their actions match their words. This is true with anyone. If someone says they are on your team, you don't automatically trust them with your children. You get to know them. If their behavior doesn't match what they say, you stop trusting them, just as you should.

But the point is, none of us should be at all shy about speaking frankly about the principles in Islamic doctrine. Speak openly about it, and ask Muslims directly where they stand.

This policy will be hard on everyone in the short run but ultimately it will solve a huge problem we now face, which is that heterodox Muslims are reluctant to speak up about what they really believe, and that leaves us not knowing how to treat them. Who is committed to jihad and who isn't? We don't know who to trust or how to treat them. We are collectively filled with an awkward uncertainty about Islam.

Meanwhile, true believers in jihad are busy Islamizing the West while we hesitate, paralyzed by our uncertainty. This has got to stop immediately.

We call on all non-Muslims in the free world to join us in this stand — to put the onus on each individual Muslim (not just "Muslim organizations"). We must make this clear to every person who calls himself a Muslim: If you do not openly reject the doctrine of jihad when given an opportunity to do so, we must assume you abide by it and believe in it since it is a central part of your religious doctrine.

The result will be an openness and clarity that will allow us to move forward, stopping the orthodox Muslims from proceeding with their Islamization project, freeing the heterodox Muslims from their prison of silence, and freeing ourselves from having to live with uncertainty, suspiciousness, or hatred in our day-to-day lives.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Citizen Warrior at permanent link#


Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

Don't lose your job over this one.

Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where the fuck have you been for the last ten years....OF COURSE, if a muzzie doesn't stand up and condemn the violent hatred of everything in the world, then they are silently APPROVING of it!

We here in the non-New York City regions of the USA have ALWAYS assumed that the overwhelming muzzie silence was an ENDORSEMENT of the radical behavior. WHAT ELSE WOULD IT BE????

It took you THIS LONG to figure this out????? After talking, talking, talking and more talking about it? Watching the news every day? Talking some more, watching some more.....HOW LONG WAS IT GOING TO TAKE YOU TO FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT???????


Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:32:00 pm  
Anonymous Undaunted said...

Well said. If you don't mind, I'd like to link to this essay at my blog.

Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:58:00 pm  
Anonymous RT said...

I'm a firm believer in reciprocity. Unfortunately there are two major insurmountable hurdles that lie in the path of effective reciprocation. First, there's that post-Islamic Terrorism document, aka The Constitution. While Religions have the flexibility to declare war on a nation-state, or ethnic group, we have no legal mechanism to return the favor.

The other being the deeply instilled notion that we as Americans are somehow irreversibly above institutionally singling out Islam for specific treatment. The whole "We're better than them" meme. We're not conditioned as a society to target Muslims in any manner that we can't universally apply to all religious beliefs here. The whole "All religions are good" meme.

Part of the problem is most of us are waiting for the US Government to greenlight a public response to the threat posed by allowing Muslims to live among us. That won't happen even after it's too late. And while some Islamic-majority Governments such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia have official policies that discriminate against Christians, the real violent message is being sent by the civilian populations in places like Indonesia, Iraq, and Pakistan.

Those places officially recognize non-Muslim citizens' right to freedom of religion, but the people have taken it upon themselves to encourage non-Muslims to emigrate while they still have a head attached to their shoulder.

That's unfortunately the only viable solution we as citizens of the United States have available to us. We could boycott Muslim-owned businesses, we could make it a personal policy of ours not to have Muslim friends, but neither of those options would have any positive effect on reducing the number of potential future Jihads that will be sharing classrooms with our grandchildren.

And obviously, even on a blog that's on the forefront of the counter-Jihad such as this one, the majority of us are not prepared to, at this time, perform the ugly tasks that we know our government never will. We're supposedly waiting for the catalyst that brings our society to it's senses. I'm less than confident that that day will ever come. The longer it takes to arise, the murkier it becomes on just who will be forced to emigrate.

Monday, August 29, 2011 12:25:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Personally, I have all different types of relationships with people.

1) I have close friends with whom I am as honest as possible, and

2) I have friends who are less close, with whom I put up boundaries of etiquette, and then

3) I have people who are friends only in the sense that they benefit me in various ways which could be said to be "political", whether that means the politics of groups, or politics of employment and the business world, or the politics of the actual political world.

The first type of friend mentioned above is a true friend, of course. And, of course, I would never be a true friend of anyone with whom I did not share basic common values.

Of my three best friends, 2 are non-Christians- non-believing agnostic-types (one Conservative-leaning and the other very Left-leaning) - and one is a Liberal Christian.

And then there is my wife. I can not imagine that anyone with any sense would marry a person who does not share basic values.

Monday, August 29, 2011 1:54:00 am  
Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

Anonymous, if a Muslim doesn't repudiate the actions of orthodox Muslims, it does not mean they approve of it. They could be afraid and they could be ignorant.

However, it would be wise of non-Muslims to overtly and openly assert that assumption and, in a sense, force the issue, making it uncomfortable enough that a Muslim must openly express where they actually stand or be shunned, left out, untrusted, unbefriended in this society.

And when they whine about being untrusted, we can make it known what it would take for them to be an unshunned part of this society: They must openly political Islam in all its forms.

Monday, August 29, 2011 7:08:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On another note, we have "lift off" people. A Marine Corps veteran is now throwing his hat into the ring on hopes of getting Muslim terrorist supporter of Hamas/Hexbollah, Keith Hakim Ellison's Minnesota's Congressional seat. We need to help this veteran out and in the end, it will help all of America to place Ellison in the unemployment lines so he can get the job of his future.......working for C.A.I.R.!


Monday, August 29, 2011 5:22:00 pm  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Good summary of the problem with nominal Muslims who haven't yet repudiated the example of Muhammad. It always seems odd to me that someone wants to call themselves a Muslim if they aren't serious about follow Muhammad's example. But many people do apply a religious label even though they don't follow the religion or even know what the religion demands. I can separate the person from the actual religion.

I just have to be honest with a Muslim, however. I abhor their religion. Even if they don't follow the religion, using the label is shameful. If they can accept that ... we can deal with each other.

Monday, August 29, 2011 5:26:00 pm  
Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

Well said, Jason!

Monday, August 29, 2011 7:41:00 pm  
Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

Someone sent this in an email:

After 9/11, I didn't see any of the "innocent Muslims" marching with U.S. flags on behalf of their fellow Americans, who had just been slaughtered by Muslims. As far as I am concerned, they are the enemy.

This was my response:

Blind, undiscriminating, overgeneralized hatred is just as bad as blind, undiscriminating, overgeneralized trust.

Overgeneralization is the enemy of us all.

Monday, August 29, 2011 11:50:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

At a 9/11 memorial service sponsored by our temple this month, we have the imam of the mosque at U Maine coming to speak.
There will then be a gathering.

It will be interesting to see platitudes vs real concrete statements, since so far muslims have been INVISIBLE up here.

Many are ISMAILI.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:39:00 pm  
Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

Yes, Epaminondas, you can almost guarantee you'll hear empty, vague, meaningless statements that will reassure those who want desperately to be reassured.

Someone emailed me this question:

How do I address to a conservative "friend" on FB who think Muslims in America should have the same rights as non-Muslim Americans when considering that Muslims in other countries do not really grant or respect the same rights to other non-Muslim minorities?

Do Muslims in America respect our US Constitution and First Amendment more or less concerning criticism of Islam, its core doctrines, law practices, and actions of the followers? Do they place US Constitution on greater, equal, or less footing with the Quran?

Here was my response:

One of the principles of America that we have struggled to apply is to treat each person according to his merits rather than according to his religion or race. So your friend is right. Muslims in America should have the same rights. A Muslim in America is not responsible for what Muslims do in another country. It is the ideology that is responsible, and the individual people who choose to follow that ideology. If there is a person in America that calls himself a Muslim and yet does not follow much of the ideology, giving it only lip service or not even that, should he pay the price for a fanatic in Saudi Arabia? No. That would be like taking away the rights of a Chinese American because China is a dictatorship. We don't operate that way in America. It would be very un-American.

When we find a Muslim, or indeed anyone, who is actively working to undermine our government or Constitution, however, their activity should be curtailed. Should we SUSPECT a Muslim more than an Amish farmer? Yes. A Muslim is more likely to commit sedition, based on the ideology they say they believe in.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:32:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Epa, How does it make you feel that this Imam is going to speak at your Synagogue on 9/11?

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:43:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Older Posts Newer Posts