Article

2011-10-18 Home Front: Politix

A proposed principle and guidelines re: Islam / other religions and the US

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2011-10-18 15:40|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 They agree that incitement to kill because of apostasy, blasphemy, insults to their religion, etc. is a crime equivalent to incitement to murder.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-10-17 15:54|| 2011-10-17 15:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Good one, thanks. Incitement is an offense in and of itself.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 16:08|| 2011-10-17 16:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Unfortunately those highly aspiring tennants are about as likely to occur as flying Durocs.

(Please don't neglect the hyphen)

Sofa-Soldier

Posted by Sofa-Soldier 2011-10-17 16:17|| 2011-10-17 16:17|| Front Page Top

#4 Whether or not these tenets (please don't confuse them with renters) are accepted is a matter of choice for each Muslim or other religionist.

Stay and comply or leave peacefully - fine. Stay and attempt to subvert or attack from without and we will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Or a Hellfire, if you're outside our territory and we have no effective allies there to do it for us. That's the gist of it.

Their choice and their responsibility for the consequences (good or bad) of that choice.

The intention here is to state a clear principle that articulates under what conditions we will take action against Muslims or any adherent of any other religion or ideology. To date, such a principle has not been articulated by the Right or the Right-Libertarians. As a result, the principle of Freedom of Religion has been turned into a lawfare weapon against us.

We have a choice of policies we can invoke to protect ourselves. I submit that this one, or something like it, could be effective while preserving our own integrity and liberty. ROEs, in fact, for cultural and societal survival.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 16:20|| 2011-10-17 16:20|| Front Page Top

#5 Stay and comply, leave peacefully or stay and attempt to subvert - in which case we will come down on you like a ton of bricks, is the message.
Their choice.
Posted by lotp

Sounds very harsh, possibly genocidal. Wasn't there an Austrian house painter who gave a similar leave here or else threat in the 1930's? Yes, yes of course, one "n" in tenet. Good catch!

Posted by Sofa-Soldier 2011-10-17 16:30|| 2011-10-17 16:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Not genocide, which includes the slaughter of people for who they ARE. And not reprisal attacks against noncombatants, either, in response to things they DID NOT DO.

This is targeted at individual offenders and is intended to be proportionate to the offense. It might even be said to comply with the spirit and perhaps the letter of international conventions for armed conflict, suitably interpreted for an age when such conflict is often pursued by those who do not wear the uniform of a state military.

Oh, and Besoeker/Sofa-Soldier, really - descending to Hitler references so soon in the discussion? You know perfectly well that the expulsion of the Jews under the Reich was justifed on the basis of WHO THEY WERE and not what they did - calumnies about Jewish bankers notwithstanding.

But - thank you for engaging. You raised exactly the important issues that come up when discussing this sort of thing, and that this is intended to contrast with.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 16:33|| 2011-10-17 16:33|| Front Page Top

#7 This is getting tiresome.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-17 16:44|| 2011-10-17 16:44|| Front Page Top

#8 Isn't this already the law? Aren't Muslims already flaunting it?

Beyond that, I doubt whether there is a moderate Islam, or ever can be. I think there can be "Jack-Muslims", but that anyone who takes Islam seriously is basically a poor candidate for a free citizen in a democratic society. Those are two different paths and they do not cross.

Posted by Iblis 2011-10-17 16:46|| 2011-10-17 16:46|| Front Page Top

#9 On the one hand, it is difficult for me to sympathize with Moslems when terrible things happen to them. They have their own culture, their own societies, and their own governments. When the government is on the one hand inshallah, and on the other rapacious and corrupt my emotional reaction is that it's their problem. They don't like our culture, they're welcome to theirs.

That means when there are floods in Pakistain and the rest of the world kicks in to alleviate the suffering and the government rakes off a goodly percentage, steps on and then kicks out aid workers, and makes no provision for handling recurrences, I don't see a requirement for the rest of the world to kick in when the same thing happens a year later. I have nothing against granny ladies and my heart weeps for the poor little kiddies, but that doesn't man I'm willing to acquiesce in their use as hostages.

It's precisely because of incidences like that, however, that we fall into the trap of not regarding them as quite human. They become "the Natives" to us, just as they've become "the Masses" the their exploiters. I haven't spent any time among this particular set of "natives," but I've lived in pretty close proximity to other cultures. There are a lot of differences between Laotians, various hill or woods tribesman and Vietnamese (where my own hands-on experience lies) on the one hand and Paks on the other. But on the human level they do in fact laugh, cry, and even love (if sometimes in funny ways).

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

There's much wrong with the Wonderful World of Islam, but the problem isn't with everybody. It's with the turban and automatic weapons set, the holy warriors who're determined to make the rest of the world just as nasty as they've made their own part of it.

They teach us in MBA school to break problems down into manageable chunks. The bad guyz should be the manageable chunk of the Islamic problem we're concentrating on. The old lady in the burka and the little kid who's going to grow up to do what the nawab tells him to do should get sympathy rather than derision, and we should be trying hard not to engage in total war against them.

Posted by Fred 2011-10-17 16:52|| 2011-10-17 16:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Isn't this already the law?

Not clear. The Amish, for instance, have a religious exemption from having to send their kids to high school.

Beyond that, I doubt whether there is a moderate Islam, or ever can be.

You may be right. I suspect you are, although the Sufis would disagree. I don't care one way or the other - it's their choice whether they can interpret / reinterpret / reform Islam to adhere to this principle or whether they leave / stay out of our society built on it. What I propose we not tolerate is their having it both ways here.

This is getting tiresome.

g(r)omgoru, you went from one country with state-imposed religion under the Tsars (followed by State as Religion under the commissars) to another country specifically founded on religious and ethnic identity.

Our tradition is different, and we value it.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 16:56|| 2011-10-17 16:56|| Front Page Top

#11 One what was founded by people like Besoeker---who killed off the Indians to clear space for liberty & pursuit of happiness (and sanctimony).

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-17 17:07|| 2011-10-17 17:07|| Front Page Top

#12 I hope this will be carried over as it deserves thought which often occurs best after a night's sleep.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-10-17 17:14|| 2011-10-17 17:14|| Front Page Top

#13 g(r)omgoru, most of the native Americans who died did so from epidemics rather than warfare or intentional genocide - although there certainly were exceptions to that. And IIRC, Besoeker has made it plain that he did not start out here in the US, but in a place with somewhat different legal and governmental principles.

In any case, we have to make decisions at this time under this system.

And - no sanctimony intended re: Israel, which I support strongly. Just a note that our Constitution and system are different, living as we do at this other place and under other conditions than your state, and with a governmental system that is somewhat older and somewhat different than that of the modern state of Israel.

My Israeli friends are grateful - and so am I - that their parents or grandparents were able to flee to a place where their Jewish identify was confirmed. My maternal ancestors OTOH fled the Calvinist equivalent of imposed shari'ah to settle here and fight in the Revolution so as never again to have to live under any government dedicated to a single identity or religion - not even the one they themselves held to strongly.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 17:14|| 2011-10-17 17:14|| Front Page Top

#14 CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-17 17:51|| 2011-10-17 17:51|| Front Page Top

#15 What specifically do you see in this principle that fails to take into account how things really are?

I fully admit that it is quite likely that few and will stipulate that it is possible that no Muslims would be willing to live under this principle and these guidelines.

Assuming we did indeed follow them, what is unrealistic about them?

By the way, I can suggest a couple potential objections, or at least questions, in response to what I've proposed above.

1. What would the impact of this be on, say, Catholic hospitals that did not want to perform abortions but that accept Medicaid or Medicare payments for other procedures? Can we differentiate between government funding of some things and government imposition of policies in oppposition to one group's religious beliefs as a result of that funding?

2. I included what should be a controversial clause, for discussion. What exactly are the rights - and the boundaries of those rights - of native born Muslim citizens re: agitating for changes to the Constitution? Or other groups, for that matter? Where do we draw the line? CAN we draw a line?

3. What about those Amish?

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 18:00|| 2011-10-17 18:00|| Front Page Top

#16 Assuming we did, indeed, follow them, what is unrealistic about them?

Where do I start? Perhaps the difference between reciprocal cooperation and kin selection would be a good place. Once you have through understanding of the differences between the two, try to imagine society/system of ethics based on pure kin selection.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-17 18:20|| 2011-10-17 18:20|| Front Page Top

#17 OK, help me out here.

I'm familiar with Axelrod's work and I understand the basics of kin selection. In what specific way do these address the principle I offer - not whether Muslims would choose to modify their behavior or beliefs, but the principle itself and its interpretation in the guidelines that I propose we might adopt?

How to enforce this or any other principle is a related but separate question. And again, I have no particular investment in which choice, among those offered, any given Muslim, or most Muslims, or all Muslims, or for that matter members of the "Christian Patriot" milita might make in response.

The question on the table here is

what principle shall the Right and Right/Libertarians in the United States advance with regard to OTOH the deep constitutional principle of freedom of religion and OTOH the threat to that constitution and principle by e.g. militant Islam and soft as well as hard jihad.

In other words, can the Right and the Right/Libertarians articulate a principled response to those who say the Constitution should be interpreted to allow such things as shari'ah courts that are sanctioned to operate instead of secular law?

I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on this and those of others here. Does your objection really come down to a question of practicality (Muslims won't abide by these guidelines, will lie about it etc.) or is it aimed at the principle itself?

What I am aiming at here has to do with our Constitition, not the likelihood (or lack thereof) that people from a tribal culture cloaked in rigid and aggressive religious doctrine would happily become constitional supporters. I'm challenging those who believe that e.g. Islam represents an existential threat to our way of life to articulate a clear principle consistent with the Constitution on the basis of which to respond to that threat.

Or must we say that there is no Constitutional basis on which to address this? What then?

Posted by lotp 2011-10-17 18:56|| 2011-10-17 18:56|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm familiar with Axelrod's work and I understand the basics of kin selection.

I believe you've answered your own question, sans tribalism. Well done!

Posted by Sofa-Soldier - formerly Besoeker 2011-10-17 19:06|| 2011-10-17 19:06|| Front Page Top

#19 - they recognize that, in the event they abrogate these priciples (for instance, by advocating shari'ah courts or funding groups that seek to attack and destroy this country using whatever means) then this society and this country will take the necessary actions to expel the invading foreign attack from our midst.

I think that needs to be expanded to supporting any group, anywhere, that works to institute shari'ah law, whether by hard or soft jihad. We cannot countenance a Muslim version of Boston Irish funding the IRA.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-10-17 23:07|| 2011-10-17 23:07|| Front Page Top

#20 Constitition, consititional...

I thought that I'm a sloppy typist, but I now have a quite satisfied smirk on my face, lotp.

Posted by twobyfour 2011-10-17 23:33|| 2011-10-17 23:33|| Front Page Top

#21 Disregarding lefties' opinions... Is Communism a threat o the Constitution and the way of life?

Yewbetcha.

What is Communism?? A political ideology.
It has even its trinity, Marx, Engels, Lenin, with some additional saint added here and there. It has aspects of a religion, or a cult may be a better context.

What is Islam? A political ideology with more pronounced religious aspect. In my view, there i very little difference between the two.

A simplification? Maybe. But if Islam is reclassified to what it is, not what it appears to be, then formulating the principles and rules may be a tad easier.

Posted by twobyfour 2011-10-17 23:46|| 2011-10-17 23:46|| Front Page Top

#22 From National Affairs.
And yes, it is tiresome. Brain drain moslem crap on top of the government crap democrat sandwich we are already eating.
It's a whole ball of crap sane people should not be subjected to.

Posted by newc 2011-10-18 00:31|| 2011-10-18 00:31|| Front Page Top

#23 What is Islam? A political ideology with more pronounced religious aspect. In my view, there i very little difference between the two.

That's my view also.

Additionaly, it is a political system handed down by God.

Which makes it remarkably like Communism. Although with Communism it was historical determinism that provide the mandate rather than God.

Posted by phil_b 2011-10-18 01:33|| 2011-10-18 01:33|| Front Page Top

#24 Phil, objection. Mohammed thought first it was a devil (sheitan), while his wife, for whatever reason, convinced him it was god, some kinda. Mohammed did not argue, it's far easier to justify ones' action by referring to authority of god than devil.

Posted by twobyfour 2011-10-18 03:12|| 2011-10-18 03:12|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on this and those of others here. Does your objection really come down to a question of practicality (Muslims won't abide by these guidelines, will lie about it etc.) or is it aimed at the principle itself?

(a) It's not practical.
(b) Islam is already unconstitutional under 1st, 14th, and 19th amendments.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-18 04:38|| 2011-10-18 04:38|| Front Page Top

#26 Freedom of religion? Do you think it should apply to the Aztecs? That it should allow to burn widows?

The Founding Fathers were thinking in branches of Christianism and it can be extended to non-Christian religions who, more or less, abide by the following principles: "That all men are created equal and should get the same treatement by the law" (Islam does not recognize equaliry between Muslims and non-Muslims), who are not in a perpetual war agaisnt othjer religions (fundamental in Islam, it is in the Koran a book G.d himself cannot change), who, more or less abide to "to Caesar what is from Caesar" ie who recognize the independence of the State and society (Islam regulates even how to clean yourself).

The Founding Fathers weren't thinking in Islam or the Aztec religion when they wrote the First Amendment.

Posted by JFM 2011-10-18 05:15|| 2011-10-18 05:15|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't disagree, JFM. So then the question becomes, what is the best way to deal with this that is most consistent with the other deep principles on which the US was founded?

In the United States (but not necessarily everwhere else), office holders, military etc. swear allegiance to the Constitution, not to any current government.

In the United States (but not necessarily everywhere else) you are accountable for what you do, not where you came from or what you believe.

There are two Pakistani families on my block. In one the daughters go trick or treating, wear clothes just like the other kids in their class and the mom has no problem with them joining me in my kitchen to bake and eat cookies or tentatively petting my dog. (He's cute and friendly, which helps.)

In the other familiy, the mother and young daughter wear headscarves, they attend a mosque regularly, the kids get after-school religious training once a week and the oldest boy joined the Air Force when he graduated from high school. The middle boy, who's 17, helps his dad wash and do maintenance on the several cars that belong to his dad's small limousine business, for which his mom takes the reservations and sends out the dispatches. They're up to 6 or 7 other drivers now - a classic American story of immigrate, work hard, build a better life for your kids, who turn up at the homeowners association work days and who shovelled the walks for us after a blizzard last winter,

We don't outlaw conservative Judaism in which women shave their heads and wear wigs or scarves in public. On what basis should we outlaw my neighbors? What, specifically, have they done that threatens our survival?

Or my co-worker with the PhD in a technical field who says, and I think believes, that Islam is all about keeping yourself on a strict discipline to avoid doing wrong things, who dismisses the hard jihadi people as a fringe and who doesn't really want to deal with the whole issue of Salafism? who is reading the works of Sufism now that he's in his 50s?

g(r)omgoru, you are wrong about the constitutionality of Islam IMO. It's a critical issue - in the United States we do not outlaw beliefs.

But we damned well had better be very clear about what actions - including open incitement to violent overthrow of the government - we will punish severely.

If some idiot wants to go bare chested with a feather headress and proclaim the wonders of the Aztec gods, go for it. If he starts sounding like he might have followers, it's prudent to keep an eye on him. The first time he organizes an attempt to snatch a kid and do the tear-out-the-heart bit, it's ton o' bricks time.

The Constitution is a social compact - an agreement we make with each other. It wasn't handed down from on high, like so many legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code (in the west) or other authorities. If Muslims, or anyone else, are willing and able to abide by the compact on what basis should they be outlawed?

Note that I am not talking about multiculturalism. I am talking about clearly articulating what we will defend in this culture, what others must accept in order to be here.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-18 06:27|| 2011-10-18 06:27|| Front Page Top

#28 g(r)omgoru, you are wrong about the constitutionality of Islam IMO. It's a critical issue - in the United States we do not outlaw beliefs.

Try citing "The Bell Curve" in public.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-18 06:32|| 2011-10-18 06:32|| Front Page Top

#29 Lotp, that is nice but muslim schools from the _moderate_ variety have told to that boy in tyhe Air Forcde that his loyalty is to Islam and fellow muslims _first_ and that he is allowed to take false oaths. IMHO this boy from an integrist family in the Air Fotrce is a security risk.

Also we are not talking about Muslims but about Islam, the ideology.

Posted by JFM 2011-10-18 06:35|| 2011-10-18 06:35|| Front Page Top

#30 I don't disagree about the risk. I argue that the response should be proportional.

To quote a former US President that many here admire:

Trust - but verify.

We knew perfectly well the Soviets might try to cheat on SALT, so we put monitoring systems in the treaty. As a result, SALT pretty much achieved its goals. Most of the time the Soviets complied, and when they didn't we caught them at it.

We know that some Muslims may take false oaths. Trust but verify.

Oh - and that young neighbor who enlisted chose the Air Force because OTOH it is a classic way to join the middle class and OTOH he felt that unlike the Army it would not bring him into the moral quandry of killing other Muslims in Muslim countries.

Most Muslims who move to the US do so to gain for themselves and their kids what they see us having: political and religious freedom, a better standard of living, a better educational system (I know, I know ....) etc. Many of them, like my co-worker, will avoid the radical path so long as they aren't forced to come to grips with the contradictions between our society and the teachings of their inherited religion.

That's fine with me. My co-worker complains that his teenaged son has adopted Amerian attitudes towards music, sex etc. That's even finer with me (and I'm no fan of much of our popular culture). And he cannot get a security clearance which seems right to me too, given his close family and emotional ties to Islamabad, including the fact that he carries a Pakistani as well as US passport.

What I want to do is to draw the clear line that indicates when they've crossed a line and may not participate in the benefits of this society. And I want to do it based on Constitutional principles.

That way, we know when to act and we know why we are justified in acting.

And then trust - but verify.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-18 06:40|| 2011-10-18 06:40|| Front Page Top

#31 Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. One of the main purposes of a state is to protect personal liberty. Personal liberty, however, is limited by the state. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, when there is none. You also cannot play loud music at 2A.M if it is going to annoy neighbours.
Freedom of religion is also a personal freedom as is freedom from religion. Religion is then as constrained by the state as is personal freedom.
Singapore is one of the states that truly understand this concept. It managed religions just as much as it manages individuals.
They appoint umbrella organisations which manage different religions. Taoist for the Chinese, Muslim for the Malays etc. Their main job is to foster harmony. They do this by civilising those who have come in from the village or tribe. The Taoist are not allowed to sacrifice animals like they do in their home village, back in China.
Muslims are not allowed to preach extremism. In fact all Friday sermons must be submitted to Government. Anyone who preaches extremism is jailed immediately or kicked out of the country, never to return.
All that said, until Islam can learn to handle the concept of Dar al-Harb vs. Dar al-Islam in a civilised manner it needs to be kept under parole and under close supervision.

Posted by tipper 2011-10-18 06:59|| 2011-10-18 06:59|| Front Page Top

#32 g(r)omgoru, you are wrong about the constitutionality of Islam IMO

I think I need to reword that. It certainly is the case that Islam in nearly all interpretations makes claims and demands that are not in the spirit of our Constitution. The question is, how do individual Muslims interpret and act on them?

In Chritianity, this was addressed early on: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

Nonetheless, there was serious concern among some when John F. Kennedy ran for office that his loyalty would be to the Pope before the US, his service in WWII notwithstanding. We don't worry about that now.

I don't know if Islam can, or will, find ways to live peacefully in non-Islamic countries in this century, with air travel, international banking and biotech labs that can fit into a garage and genetically modify lethal organisms. I do think that our response should be based on some thoughtful consideration of what policies would best serve us overall, not only to protect against threats but also to preserve this grand Constitutional experiment.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-18 09:39|| 2011-10-18 09:39|| Front Page Top

#33 Oh - and that young neighbor who enlisted chose the Air Force because OTOH it is a classic way to join the middle class and OTOH he felt that unlike the Army it would not bring him into the moral quandry of killing other Muslims in Muslim countries.

He hasn't thought this through. First, if he ends up in aircraft maintenance, for instance, he will at some point be supporting those who are killing other Muslims in Muslim countries; second, Predators; third, and most important, once you take the oath of service, you cannot choose which wars you will fight and which you won't. Athough I suppose if he goes for military policing, he might get to guard Muslim prisoners instead of killing or supporting the killing of jihadis somewhere in the world,

Posted by trailing wife 2011-10-18 10:31|| 2011-10-18 10:31|| Front Page Top

#34 TW, the Air Force has nukes.

Posted by JFM 2011-10-18 10:41|| 2011-10-18 10:41|| Front Page Top

#35 In other words, can the Right and the Right/Libertarians articulate a principled response to those who say the Constitution should be interpreted to allow such things as shari'ah courts that are sanctioned to operate instead of secular law?

Of course there is, and its already in there, with no amendments needed. Just enforcement of Article VI:
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The key, of course, is "should be interpreted": the plain text is plain enough, so to get anything else out of it requires "interpretation". In the end, principles guide "interpretation", which puts applying the Constitution on the same level as applying Scriptures. Take a strict interpretation based on the meaning of the words as they existed at the time the text was written, and you're a "fundamentalist".

Posted by Ptah 2011-10-18 11:45|| 2011-10-18 11:45|| Front Page Top

#36 Oh - and that young neighbor who enlisted chose the Air Force because OTOH it is a classic way to join the middle class and OTOH he felt that unlike the Army it would not bring him into the moral quandry of killing other Muslims in Muslim countries.

I find myself wondering when the last time someone in the Taliban, or the Pakistani army, or the Revolutionary Guard, or Hezbollah, or any of hundreds of other organizations, felt such a quandry.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-10-18 12:00|| 2011-10-18 12:00|| Front Page Top

#37 TW, the Air Force has nukes.

But not every maintenance technician gets near them.

This young man works a desk job, paperwork for buying supplies etc. IIUC.

And yes - I suspect he hasn't thought this through fully. But that may or may not matter, if he keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay, as my co-worker seems to do.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-18 12:01|| 2011-10-18 12:01|| Front Page Top

#38 "Moslems shouldn't fight other Moslems" is basically a propaganda line designed by the aristocrats that rule the Islamic world meant to deny us things like interpreters so that we'll be forced to choose between bleeding to death and the more ruthless courses of action that are being argued against here.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-10-18 12:17|| 2011-10-18 12:17|| Front Page Top

#39 "Additionaly, it is a political system handed down by God."

No, it was passed down by some illiterate arab raiders that wanted to justify their murder and plunder.

GOD has nothing to do with it. It's all man made.

Posted by newc 2011-10-18 12:45|| 2011-10-18 12:45|| Front Page Top

#40 Also, Islam is not a religion, it is a political movement that has spiritual undertones.

Posted by newc 2011-10-18 12:46|| 2011-10-18 12:46|| Front Page Top

#41 so that we'll be forced to choose between bleeding to death and the more ruthless courses of action that are being argued against here.

Not arguing against more ruthless courses of action, but suggesting rather strongly that for our own sakes we'd better be clear about the principles we stand for and the guidelines they suggest.

Snowy, as is often the case you get to the nub of it. I've been waiting for someone in this discussion to ask whether we aren't facing existential threat from the financial burden of fighting a constrained war against barbarian raiders.

There's IMO a good argument to be made along those lines. But - again IMO - I think it's important to make that argument as a basis for those more ruthless actions, for our own sakes and for our descendents to understand that we did so after consideration and after restraint did not suffice.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-18 14:13|| 2011-10-18 14:13|| Front Page Top

#42 Try Golden Rule.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-10-18 14:17|| 2011-10-18 14:17|| Front Page Top

#43 What exactly are the rights - and the boundaries of those rights - of native born Muslim citizens re: agitating for changes to the Constitution? Or other groups, for that matter? Where do we draw the line? CAN we draw a line?

What about those Amish?

Both of these are the problems I have. As long as they are obeying the law, do we really need or want a law to further restrain Muslims? And how would we enforce it, especially against second generation adolescents?

I do think one thing we need to do is get rid of dual citizenship. If you are an American, that's what you are. That's my objection to all the hyphenated Americans. If you are an American you have absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.

This also gets to the problem with the extra-judicial execution of Alawaki. He should have been found to have shown allegiance to a foreign prince, etc. by due process of law, stripped of his citizenship and then hunted down.

As for the Amish, in the article I submitted that did not make it to the 'burg it is clear that a mob of them is assaulting those who fail to faithfully follow the tenets of the order in eastern Ohio. They should not be deported to Germany, but they should be tried for assault and, if found guilty, sent to the hoosgow. Our existing laws are sufficient.

As for the founders, I think Washington would have found his words to the Truro synagogue as applicable to Musselmen as to Jews:

absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-10-18 14:31|| 2011-10-18 14:31|| Front Page Top

#44 Boy, I even previewed and didn't catch the bad paste. What Washington said was:

The Citizens of the United States of America
have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the
indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-10-18 14:35|| 2011-10-18 14:35|| Front Page Top

#45 New thread on the topic of "is the economic impact of the WOT an existential threat?" opened here.

Your thoughts invited, along with responses to Nimble Spemble's thoughtful comments above.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-18 14:35|| 2011-10-18 14:35|| Front Page Top

#46 Muslims are taught from a young age Islam is a divine guide from God on how to live and it is Gods Law/word whilst US law is man made and therefore corrupted!

They put their religion before nationality.

Please remember they are muslim first British/American/Canadian second!This will not change as they call each muslim brother or sister.
Non muslims are looked down upon.They have abandoned the true path.Muslims are the chosen ones as they follow Allah to the letter of the Law/Koran/Gods words.

Posted by Paul D 2011-10-18 15:18|| 2011-10-18 15:18|| Front Page Top

#47 I agree that our existing laws should be sufficient. I posted the 'Burg's original link to those Amish terrorists a few weeks ago. Some of them have indeed been sent to the hoosegow & Ohio laws are slowly grinding out their fates. Just as existing laws have not been enforced against financial miscreants, other laws have not been enforced against Islamists living in the US & working against its constitutional principles, not to mention laws against ~~undocumented Democrats~~ illegal immigration.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-10-18 15:20|| 2011-10-18 15:20|| Front Page Top

#48 Missed your post on the domestic religious fanatics, AH. I've been working too much.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-10-18 16:10|| 2011-10-18 16:10|| Front Page Top

23:47 dk70 the scantily clad
23:46 twobyfour
23:35 Mercutio
23:33 twobyfour
23:29 trailing wife
23:23 trailing wife
23:20 trailing wife
23:07 trailing wife
23:02 gorb
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:19 Creger Hapsburg9613
22:11 Creger Hapsburg9613
22:11 Procopius2k
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:04 ryuge
21:49 dk70 the scantily clad
21:46 JosephMendiola
21:44 Creger Hapsburg9613
21:42 JosephMendiola
21:20 Rob Crawford
21:18 trailing wife
20:50 JosephMendiola
20:44 JosephMendiola
20:17 Pappy