No one wants to say we're at war with Islam per se, because a quarter of the people on this planet claim to be Muslims. What we're trying to do is separate Muslims into two groups, and fight just one of them.
We are at war with Islamism, which claims to be the only authentic version of Islam, but an awful lot of people who say they're Muslims think is heresy.
Personally, I've wanted Bush to make a speech for some time to make this clear. I'm afraid now it's too late for him to do it, but maybe his successor can:
If you believe that you personally should live your life in accordance with the teachings of a particular prophet, but do not seek to impose your belief upon others by force, your right to practice that faith is enshrined in our First Amendment.
However, it proposes a two-part package about religion: You will be left free to practice your religion, but you must allow that same freedom to everyone else. No one, including the government, will be allowed to force people to follow any particular religion, nor to force them to abandon it.
The moment you insist that others be forced to abide by the dictates of your faith (they won't be allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, wear "revealing" clothing and makeup, be alone with a man they're neither married nor related to...), you have passed beyond exercising your own rights, and are actively violating those of others. And as our Founding Fathers put it so well, when an institution becomes destructive of the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is subject to be altered or abolished.
The extreme form of Islam that insists Shari'a law must be imposed on everyone, is incompatible with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And that means it can't coexist with the United States of America.
Monster (The)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
A reply
2 comments:
We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.
In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.
We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.
The Monster,
ReplyDeleteI too would like to see such a speech but I do not think that it would solve the basic problem, that being Islam's incompatibility with secular society. In the cultural mixing bowl that is our global world today, the practice of Muslim customs in non-Muslim venues creates a clash of cultures. Their freedom to practice their belief imposes itself upon the host culture. In subtle ways, the original culture adjusts to the practices of the foreigner, instead of the other way around. A few examples. In England, Muslims now have a De-facto right to practice polygamy, a right that is denied to the rest of the population. In New York, Muslim cabbies refuse to transport customers with liquor or dogs. In the southern U.S. Muslims working in a meat packing plant refused to process pork. In supermarkets, Muslim checkout workers have refused to process transactions involving "unclean" consumer products such as Bibles or Bacon. Muslim workers have refused to wear company uniforms because they are immodest. Muslims demand, and are given special facilities for foot washing, meditation, prayer and a host of other behaviors that do not benefit the rest of society. They have been endowed with "Special" privileges and their enemies are denied simple freedoms. Let us never forget the Danish cartoonists or the murder of Theo Van Gogh. In instance after instance it is civilization that gives up a little more freedom to the Diktat of Mohammedanism. We change and they do not. Which culture wins in this scenario? I do not believe that it is the west. I think that the practice of Islam and the demand that we reshape our culture to accommodate it is an assault on our fundamental freedom. It is a type of creeping fascism that must be eliminated as thoroughly as it's european predecessors. Since co-existence is not possible, we must prevail. All civilised spin aside, this is what it will come down to in the end. They demand submission, not equality. It is the very core of their beliefs. That core belief must be eradicated. That is what the great war is all about.
God save the Republic!
Svin
If a Muslim doesn't want to work producing pork, or transporting people with alcohol or dogs, that is his right, just as it's the right of a Baptist to refuse to work at a bar where people drink and dance, or a bookstore that sells Wiccan literature. It just limits the jobs available to him. What he does not have the right to do is force employers to create a job that accommodates his religious beliefs.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I see no reason why polygamy should be illegal, but I don't think Muslims should get special treatment. One wonders if the recent festivities in Texas might have been different were the creepy old guys grooming young girls to be their wives were Muslims instead of alleged Christians.
There were some times when government tried to enforce some form of Christianity upon people, but we got over that. It took a Reformation, a bunch of civil wars, and centuries of arguing over the proper roles of church and state, but we have reached the point where we allow freedom of conscience.
The question is whether Islam can be reformed, or has Wahab permanently won the argument about what "true Islam" is.