Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Do Muslims have the Same Rights as Christians?

Herman Cain Stumbles over the Constitution

Just a Conservative Girl over at Potluck scolded presidential candidate Herman Cain for siding with the Murfreesburo, Tennessee group that wants to prevent a mosque from being built in their town. She rightly points out that Cain’s position runs afoul of the US Constitution.
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that communities have a right to ban Islamic mosques.

"Let's go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying that they are objecting to," Cain said. "They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both religion and (a) set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes. (Sacbee – Herman Cain)
Cain’s reasoning is tenuous and tendentious as best. I understand the distinction he is making between religious islam and political islam, but it still does not pass constitutional muster. What’s to stop communities from banning Catholic Churches because that faith’s canon law does not jive with civil law on the subject of divorce? As gay marriage fever sweeps the nation, can states outlaw Baptist Churches because they refuse to bless such ceremonies?

Religious law that is voluntary, respectful of human rights, and not in violation of civil law is a good thing

Muslims have a right to their Sharia law, so long as it’s practice does not conflict with our civil law, and it does not impinge on the rights of the rest of us. It’s called religious freedom. More importantly, certain abhorrent practices aside, Sharia law is a code for Muslims to live by, and it provides a way for them to guide their lives and solve problems without getting government involved.

Indeed, the concept of solving problems at the lowest level has been snuffed by progressivism. Catholics call this concept of solving problems at the lowest level, subsidiarity, but they didn’t invent it. It goes back to the time of Moses, and our founding fathers wrote a constitution and built a nation upon the concept. National civil society starts with personal morality. Problems must first be addressed within the family, next the larger community, and so on. We’ve forgotten how to solve our own problems without government intervention.

If we are to stay true to our constitutional principles, we cannot be singling out certain religions for especial opprobrium or holding them to extraordinary standards. So long as the Murfreesburo Muslims obey the law, seek no special favors from the government and refrain from dictating their laws to non-Muslim citizens, what’s the problem?


jez said...

I'm a fan of subsidiarity, although in some avenues there may be an economies of scale argument against it. Defence obviously benefits from scale, for example.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: What you just stated jibes with subsidiarity. An individual family cannot carry out national defense, or even a coherent piece of it. It requires a coordinated national effort.

Big Mama Says said...

Do Muslims have the Same Rights as Christians?

Of course they do.

They have the same lefts too.

Always On Watch said...

If we are to stay true to our constitutional principles, we cannot be singling out certain religions for especial opprobrium or holding them to extraordinary standards.

However, when mosques preach treason and sedition, a different situation ensues.

Protestant churches are scrutinized to make sure that they don't cross the line into supporting a particular political party. Mosques should be treated in a similar fashion, IMO.

Of course, one of the problems with mosques is that Wahhabist-affiliated ones "revive" Muslims and encourage jihad. We've seen numerous occasions of just that.

As gay marriage fever sweeps the nation, can states outlaw Baptist Churches because they refuse to bless such ceremonies?

Actually, I think that's exactly where we're headed.

Remember when churches couldn't perform racially-mixed marriages as the rule of civil law so forbade? Do those same churches still not perform such ceremonies? I suspect that some might, but I wonder what has happened to their tax-exempt status since this SCOTUS decision.

Anonymous said...

I wrote about the same thing today, and we're pretty much in agreement on this.

I went a step further, however, to say that this pretty much tanks any chance he might have had at nabbing the nomination.

Mark Adams said...

Where does Constitutional law stop and Sharia law kick in.
The fundamental difference here can be said that canon law and sharia law differ in many aspects.

Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia; while the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader, or political leader.

So Cain real issue is the separation of church and state, on this issue.

Nice post, good topic, Silver.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: I agree with your assessment of it killing his nomination chances.

It will be interesting to see where tea partiers come down on this one.

Does you love for the constitution trump your distaste of Islam?

Silverfiddle said...

Mark: The fundamental point is that the constitution does not stop.

It prohibits honor killings, but it also protects the free exercise of religion so long as that free exercise does not violate our laws or the fundamental rights of others.

My other point is that people, families, churches, voluntary associations have freedom to make their own laws and voluntarily abide by them, so long as they do not conflict with civil law.

Catholic Canon Law is similar to Sharia in that it is a body of rules and norms that adherents of the faith recognize.

It is dissimilar in that Canon Law is more homogeneous, unambiguously codified and not open to interpretation by local yahoos.

It is unconstitutional to deny any faith group the right to build a house of worship. This does not preclude the government from prosecuting criminal acts that may emanate from a religious group.

Remember when Janet Reno burned alive all those religious cultists down in Waco?

Ducky's here said...

As gay marriage fever sweeps the nation, can states outlaw Baptist Churches because they refuse to bless such ceremonies?

Marriage is a CIVIL contract and by denying gays access to that contract it has been ruled a denial of equal protection. When is the fringe right going to figure that out?

Ducky's here said...

Protestant churches are scrutinized to make sure that they don't cross the line into supporting a particular political party.


Are you serious? Campaigning from the pulpit has been a feature of Protestant and Catholic churches for some time now.

Used to be that Muslims were a reliable Republican block. But thanks to the likes of Cain and Terry Jones, well their homeless in the political arena now.

My question regarding the pizza delivery man is whether he will cheapen the Republican field even further when he opens his mouth or have the Baggers dragged the party down so far that they can't even mount a challenge to Obummer.

Always On Watch said...

Are you serious? Campaigning from the pulpit has been a feature of Protestant and Catholic churches for some time now.

You've attended such services?

All I hear in services that venture into the political realm is disclaimers of endorsement of any political party or particular candidates.

amanofwonder said...

Although I was taken aback by the statement by Mr. Cain, it did give me a pause for reflection.

What say a group of individuals came to America and wanted to practice cannibilism as part of their religion? Do we allow them to build sacrificial alters where they are allowed to carve up their meat or do we prohibit the construction of said religious shrine?

I ask but two questions. When is it prudent to be preemptive versus reactionary after someone is dead and consumed? Does not islam seek to kill all other religions?

Jersey McJones said...


American Muslims are subject to the same criminal and civil laws as the rest of us.

Here's all you need to know about the subject, all wrapped up in this convenient little nutshell:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's that.

Oh, and like I've been reminding you all for some time now - Herman Cain is an idiot.


Big Mama Says said...

Why you call Herman Cain is an idiot jus becuse he be a piza man? Maybee he bee a idiot, butt fer different reasons.

Just a conservative girl said...

thanks for the linky love. You know where I stand on this.

Parts of Sharia law are already unconstitutional. This is squarely playing to fear, and we do not need a president that is basing his decisions on fear.

The more I think about what he said I also realize that he also said that this is how he would handle problems in the White House. He says he spoke to those opposing this mosque. Which is a viewpoint he already holds. Did he speak to the ones in the community who were supportive of it too? If not, why in heavens name would I want that type of "problem solving" governing our country? He is done.

amanofwonder said...

Dear Mr. McJones,

Thank you so much for pointing out the idiotic nature of my preemptive approach to perserving the whole of society as oppossed to special interest groups.

I whole hearted acknowledge the logic of what I might understand your position to be. By all means the KKK can claim religious status and we can only react once the quota uv lynched niggers has been surpassed. Of course the Nazi skinheads deserve to build and operate their gas chamber churchs up to the point that say 2 million of them joowes are eliminated, then we can react. With out a doubt NAMBLA has the right to let some smoke outta the chimney announcing they have a pope that will decree little boys are fair game until one too many little rug rats has had their life unalterably adulterated, then we can react.

And most importantly the Holy Church of the Ostrich sect should be allowed to stick their heads in the sand and blissfully ignore the dangers of hyenas, lions and tigers, OH MY! I guess maybe they do deserve to go extinct.

Like I said, I was taken aback by Mr. Cain's statement and just because it provided a pause for thought, does not mean I agree with him. So I will look the other way while you chew your peyote, ya better join that religion down in the Southwest cuz it's illegal for the whole of society, and wish you pleasant hallucinogenic dreams about there being no evil in the world.

Please don't chew and drive, someone may get hurt as you indulge yourself.

jez said...

SF: yeah, but a state could defend itself, I don't think it's subsidiary that pushes up to fed level.

Bunkerville said...

At least Cain said what he thought. What a surprise from a candidate.

Jersey McJones said...

"Why you call Herman Cain is an idiot jus becuse he be a piza man?"

Big Momma, unlike Herman Cain, I'm not an idiot. I don't think that way.


I American law, we do not need for an act to occur and then react to it. We can act on conspiracies as well. If we suspect a conspiracy to commit a crime is taking place, and we have sufficient evidence, we can theoretically prevent, as we have relatively successfully done since 9/11, for example.


Leticia said...

I agree with staying true to our constitution and upholding its standards. We cannot allow keep falling back from the Muslim movement.

They continue to demand for special privileges and tend to have them granted.

Christians aren't even allowed to say, "God" in public schools.

Anonymous said...

"Muslims have a right to their Sharia law, so long as it’s practice does not conflict with our civil law, and it does not impinge on the rights of the rest of us ..." [Emphasis added]

And there's the rub, SilverFiddle.

SHARIA LAW is the essence of INTOLERANCE, and the one thing we can never afford to tolerate is intolerance. Sharia Law and the customs, mores and values of the Middle East are incompatible with our Constitution -- and with Western cultural mores and traditions in general.

Islam does not belong in the West.

ISLAM is not a RELIGION; it is an INCURSION.

It's nature is not to live peaceably with other religions and other cultural norms and traditions. Its nature is to CONQUER and DESTROY anything that does not conform to the dictates of Islam. THAT is what Sharia Law is all about. There is no desire among its practitioners to live comfortably with "infidels." The desire there is either to CONVERT or KILL. There is no allowance for compromise in Sharia Law.

Any pretense to the contrary should be regarded as an example of TAKEEYA -- a significant part of Sharia that considers it a positive virtue to LIE to the Infidel and deceive him into letting down his guard so you may worm your way into positions of power and influence and eventually defeat and conquer him from within.


When Islamic countries stop persecuting Christians and Jews -- when they permit Christian churches to be built -- when they permit visitors to bring copies of The Holy Bible into their countries without fear of reprisal -- when they welcome Christian Missionaries to enter their Sheikdoms with open arms -- when they sponsor ECUMENICAL INITIATIVES on THEIR SOIL, then -- maybe -- they should be permitted "the free exercise" of their religion here. But for that ever to happen, they would have to change the nature of their "faith" to the point where it would be virtually unrecognizable.

BAN the BURKA. BAN the HIJAB. BAN the building of MOSQUES and MADRASSAS. Lock up the members of CAIR in PRISON and throw away the key. DEPORT all foreign-born MUSLIMS, and outlaw the practice of this "religion," which is not a religion at all, but rather an aggressive political movement very like Naziism and Communism in its ambition to establish TOTALITARIAN CONTROL of OUR nation.


Disbelieve that at your peril.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

AOW, let's take the example of Catholic clergy actively campaigning against any candidate that votes for gay marriage or abortion. There is no shortage.

Muslims are likely to be as conservative. Don't know why you perceive them as a threat.

amanofwonder said...

Dear Mr. McJones, (again)

"I American law, we do not need for an act to occur and then react to it. We can act on conspiracies as well. If we suspect a conspiracy to commit a crime is taking place, and we have sufficient evidence, we can theoretically prevent, as we have relatively successfully done since 9/11, for example."

I find it hard to believe you can make a statement like this as a means to convince me to see it your way.

Yes we have been reasonably successful in preventing further incidents of mass murder since 9-11but only after we reacted to the reality there must be other threats out there if something like this can occur.

Yet has not Islam existed for scores of centuries with the consistent message of, "destroy all things that we disagree with"? We had that evidence well before 9-11 and yet we as a tolerant society ignored the facts and did nothing until 3,000 human beings are now no more.

I have not seen one new law adopted that addresses the fact that Islam advocates murder as an acceptable means to advance their cause. That tenet alone violates the principle that all citizens of this country have the right to pursue happiness when it does not harm the well being of others.

Do we not seek to root out the Mafia because they use murder as a means to advance their cause, (among other law breaking activities)? The Rico laws are in place because of the Mafia and other racketeering groups. Very specific laws targeting a very specific type of people and their activities.

If I know that a rattlesnake has deadly venom, is coiled and ready to strike me, do you really expect me to stand there and let myself get bitten before I take an action of self preservation?

If so, just who is the idiot in this thread?

Ducky's here said...

@Leticia -- They continue to demand for special privileges and tend to have them granted.


Can you give an example?

Maybe the class will help you. Farmer will even post some uner two new identities.

Ducky's here said...

It's nature is not to live peaceably with other religions and other cultural norms and traditions. Its nature is to CONQUER and DESTROY anything that does not conform to the dictates of Islam. THAT is what Sharia Law is all about.

Stunning. Actually, it's very close to orthodox rabbinical law and we allow orthodox Jewish religious courts to resolve certain torts and contract disputes. When the two parties agree to abide by the decision it's effective and takes a burden off the civil courts.

I'm afraid that you are on of those who took the crash two week course just after 9/11 from the Michele Bachmann School of Islamic History. Become a qualified expert in the history of Islam in just two weeks. Can't tell a Sufi from a Sunni, not to worry. You really need to reconsider your expertise, Freethinker.

Anonymous said...

I've heard it ALL, Ducky -- for TEN YEARS. I don't buy any of it.

Remember Morgaan at FPM? She and I became fast friends, despite her posting hundreds of thousands of pro-Islamic information there. She was madly in love with the Sufis, but neglected to tell us what a small fraction of Islam they comprise.

I do realize that of the billion and a quarter Muslims that inhabit the earth only about TWO-HUNDRED-FIFTY-MILLION of them should rightly be categorized as "Islamic Extremists," but that's almost as many people as our entire populace.

I disapprove of the Jews having special privileges to function outside our system while living within it as much as I disapprove of the violent extremists. It's a matter of principle.

At any rate, we have no idea who the good ones are, if any, and who the bad ones are, so it's safer and saner to assume that all are incompatible with our way of life. They do NOT belong here.

The aggressive-defensiveness of Muslim spokespeople right after 911 -- a truculent, insolent defensiveness bordering on outright belligerence --told me all I needed to know. Not even a faint pretense at compassion for the victims of 911. Not even the most perfunctory sign of contrition. No sign whatsoever of shame or disapproval of what their filthy compatriots did -- only bristling, abrasive, whining, self-serving denial that Islam had anything to do with 911.

As my friend Bitch Cassidy once said, bless her ornery old heart, "You don't need to eat a pound of shit to know it don't taste good."


~ FreeThinke

Bd said...

YOU are the 'subversion.'

Anonymous said...

Why is it that leftists are always quick to show support for the sworn enemies of our country, her culture and for the Christian Tradition?

And why is it that they are so quick to censure those who would put America first, and vigorously defend our majority Christian faith?

If Muslims ever got control here, the highly vocal leftists and most of the splinter groups leftists profess to admire and adore -- like feminists and homosexuals -- would be among the very first to be taken into custody, subjected to the most brutal forms of torture, and then either slowly beheaded with a dull knife, hanged, or bound and gagged, then thrown off a high wall to die a slow horrible death after being smashed up on the rocks below.

OR they might simply be tethered to a post and abandoned in the middle of the dessert unable to stand up straight, sit or lie down until death by starvation, dehydration and exposure mercifully claimed them.

OR maybe they'd suffer the fate visited on Muslim women accused of behavior unsanctioned by Shariah Law, and be buried in sand u to their necks and ritually stoned -- or kicked -- to death by a whole village full of pious, "observant" Muslims.

OR maybe they'd be allowed to go free -- AFTER having their eyes plucked out and their nose and ears sliced off.

OR maybe they'd have the inestimable privilege of being subjected to the Death of a Thousand Cuts?

You never can tell what these bloodthirsty barbarians might have in store for you should you fall into their clutches.

Me, personally, I wouldn't want to take any chance of that ever happening -- and neither would you, if you had the sense you were born with.

Disbelieve this at your peril.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Once again Comrade Ducky, you add nothing to the discussion. You may be the most worthless person outside the White House.

Silver, I agrees. While I do not agree with Islam, especially political Islam, they have the same rights we do. If we can limit their religious freedoms, what is to stop anti-spiritual Marxists from limiting our freedoms?

BTW my url has changed:http://www.donttreadonus.info/

Anonymous said...

Does anyone remember the story that came out a few years ago about the man who loudly proclaimed to the world how foolish it was for us to fear sharks? He touted their virtues, told us they were badly misunderstood and had more to fear from us than we them, etc.

He then got into the water in a much publicized event that purported to prove that man could swim comfortably with sharks with impunity.

The result?

He was viciously attacked by at least one of his shark buddies and lost at least one limb, if I remember correctly.

This poor foolish shark advocate reminds me of liberals -- AND of decent, well-meaning, law respecting libertarian-conservatives -- who say we must give the sharks and other known fiends who dwell among us the same equal rights and equal protection guaranteed to good, decent, law-abiding citizens under our Constitution.

Sorry, but all I can say to that is to repeat:


And if you think that's an untenable position, then examine please the decidedly unconstitutional actions taken by Abraham Lincoln -- one of our most revered presidents -- who was directly responsible for the death of 635,000 soldiers and countless civilians -- nearly a million people in all -- and then tell me why he has not gone down as one of the greatest criminals and mass murderers in the annals of history.

HE didn't give a tinker's dam about the Constitution when it got in the way of his objectives. So, why should we, when it's a matter of doing the prudent thing to ward off probably attack?

The good people on the right lose and lose and lose, because they are too damned CONSIDERATE of their enemies.

If you don't like what I have to say on the subject, you should listen to Michael Savage. HE would make your head explode.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

Good God, I agree with Jersey and Ducky!

Jersey on the establishment clause is absolutely correct. Not permitting Moslems to build Mosques in their communities violates the "prohibiting free exercise thereof"

Thank you Jersey... People on the left tend to focus on "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", while the right tends to focus on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Glad to see we can read a complete sentence together.

Ducky is also correct in that we allow people to voluntarily subject themselves to a code of conduct or set of laws, and to voluntarily agree to be subject to and judged under them. Where it ends is when Sharia law violates either the civil or criminal laws of this country, or when one party removes themselves from the agreement. We don't let Christian churches adjudicate the crime of theft, why would Sharia Law preempt public law?

Anonymous said...

Well, Ducky. You owe me. It seems I may have accomplished the impossible. It appears my strongly negative views of Islam and its potential to do great harm to the West have gotten you into the fold, albeit inadvertently.

Will you ever forgive me for breaking your record as the guy everyone loves most to hate? If your reputation on that score has been ruined, I for one am glad, because I've always known that a good heart beats beneath the crusty, flippant, sometimes obnoxious exterior which has been your trademark.

If Islam really were a religion and not the aggressive, dangerously subversive, potentially tyrannical political movement it surely is, I would agree with you and SlverFiddle and FinnTann and all the other kind-hearted, law-adoring, but-I-think naive souls who would have us be slaves to the Letter of the Law, even if our society and our way of life must be extinguished as a reward for our loyalty.

Those who believe Islam can be dealt with as "just another religion" ought to look at Melanie Phillips' brilliant analysis of Islam's influence on Merrie Olde England. It's called LONDONISTAN, and it deserves the attention of serious-minded people.

Just google LONDONISTAN and all sorts of articles from many different points of view come up. Naturally I favor those from the National Review and Commentary. Wikipedia will tell you about it -- from a decidedly leftist point of view. Leftists, it seems, are devoted to promoting The Demise of the West by any and all means. Letting Islam gain any sort of power and influence in a Western Country is certainly one of those means.

Islam is the latest version of The Trojan Horse.

And once again I feel compelled to quote:


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


If your house is infested with cockroaches, and you foundation with termites, you do not try to "understand" them, you not try to see things from "their" point of view, you do not try to get along with them, you certainly do nothing to ACCOMMODATE them, do you?

No! No! No! Instead you do everything possible to get RID of them.

'Nuff said.

There are things our Founding Fathers never foresaw:

1. Islam coming to these shores and planting hostile foreign colonies in our midst

2. The Machine Age which gave rise to Marxism and Unionism

3. Flight

4. The Mafia

5. Weapons of Mass Destruction

6. TV

7. Madelyn Murray O'Hair

8. The Internet

If they had, they might have taken a slightly more restrictive, less inclusive tack when they wrote the Constitution.

The Law of Self-Preservation supersedes all other considerations in my never humble opinion.

~ FreeThinke

Most Rev. Gregori said...

I may be going out on a limb here, but I believe Cain is correct. The Constitution pertains to the federal government. The federal government cannot create a state religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise there of. However, the individual communities can establish their own rules and regulations as to where, when or if places of religious worship or any other edifice can or cannot be built. Read the section of the Constitution which we call the enumerated powers act.

For years, communities all across the United States have made decisions concerning the erection of stores, shops, restaurants, houses of worship.

The same applies to the Second Amendment as well. The federal government has absolutely no constitutional right or power to to restrict gun ownership or what types or how many guns a person may own, but the individual states, counties, cities, towns can set local standards.

Silverfiddle said...

They don't have a right to do it, Reverend. Our God-given rights may not be infringed by the states or by local communities.

Muslims have a right to build a house of worship and to worship there. They do not have a right to make their own laws in contravention of civil law. So the imam can decide family disputes, etc, but they are in trouble if they perform honor killings, floggings, etc.

Ducky's here said...

Honor killings are very rare and are a CULTURAL phenomenon, not a singularly religious issue.

You should study the honor cultures of the Mediterranean and their practices. They are thankfully disappearing but survive in very rural areas.

Also female circumcision which right wing icon Ayaan Hirsi Ali conned the gullible right into believing is a strictly Muslim practice. Again, it's cultural and is practiced in Africa by all religions including Ethiopian Jews, so you find the practice even in Israel.

Ducky's here said...

The Constitution would trump state law. Communities can not prevent the free exercise of religion. Which is what Tennessee is clearly trying to do since all zoning and siting ordinances have been satisfied.

As for the second amendment. I'm with ultra conservative hero Robert Bork, it gives you the right to join a recognized militia. Otherwise ... it's to the states. The Constitution gives you little on this matter.

Anonymous said...

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

If Islam were truly a RELIGION, I would agree with the strict constitutionalists, but clearly it is not. It is an INVASION. The Black Muslim movement aka NOI headed by Calypso Louie, the charming charismatic "Minister Farrakhan" is clearly a SUBVERSIVE organization cloaked in the GUISE of "religion." It preaches hatred of white men and Jews, and seeks to overthrow the Establishment. Our prisons are its most fertile breeding ground, its "converts" come from the lowest of the low. Because it gets away with calling itself a "religion," it claims -- and RECEIVES -- constitutional protection.

That's a PERVERSE reading of the Constitution.

The same is true of traditional Mohammedanism -- as it is practiced by some two-hundred-fifty-million people scattered around the globe.

If someone comes to my house, I expect them to conduct themselves according to MY rules. You cannot enter my house with dog dirt on your shoes and track it across the carpets. You cannot smoke. You cannot take off your clothes in my living room and perform lewd acts. You cannot enter my house and smash my china. You cannot pee on my house plants or pull up my flowers or tear down my draperies. You cannot enter my home and repeatedly insult me, and not be shown the door. You cannot force me to discus things I don't want to talk about. You cannot force me to change my diet to suit your preferences, etc., etc., etc.

The United States of America is our HOMELAND.

We should be able to reserve the right to cherish our OWN traditions, establish rules of conduct and preserve our OWN customs and mores without being challenged in our OWN courts by foreign elements hostile to the very essence of who we are -- or at least try to be.

It's a very sad thing when love for one's own identity and the desire to preserve and enhance the positive aspects of one's own culture and religion are regarded as HATEFUL and UNLAWFUL.

These enemies of freedom, who have planted themselves among us, are cleverly, but perversely using laws and principles OUR Founders devised AGAINST us. I for one do not believe we should sit idly by and let ourselves be overtaken just because we think we have such a duty to respect our Constitution that we have no right to defend or interests when the Constitution is clearly being manipulated by legalistic thinkers to transform us into something we despise and were never intended to be.

I think it's just fine to allow Muslims to be whatever they want to be -- as long as they are confined to their NATIVE lands. If they want to be part of OUR society, they should know that they MUST change or not be welcome.

For the last time:

Islam is NOT a religion, it is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT akin to Naziism and Communism, and as such must be resisted and FOUGHT to a STANDSTILL.

~ FreeThinke

MK said...

"So long as the Murfreesburo Muslims obey the law, seek no special favors from the government and refrain from dictating their laws to non-Muslim citizens, what’s the problem?"

Oh yeah, that's what Europeans told themselves when the muslim immigrants arrived. And it's worked out real swell for them since then.

Silverfiddle said...

That's why multiculturalism has to be thrown on the junk pile and we must resolve no special accommodations for any group.

Scott said...

No PC and no special accomadations should be the rule. I agree with Trestin and you ao all major points regarding First Amendment rights albeit that in my opinion Islam is not a religion. Just remember who our Dear leader has sanctioned as his spiritual leader however. It is Sir Wallace who Charlie Rangel canonized on the House floor today for spiritually advising the Dear leader on how to solve the budget crisis. We have come to where Obama is installing what ammounts to a "State Religion". This is Constitutionally unsound. I have attended services (at a black liberation theology ministry)as a guest before the 2008 election where ACORN workers were waiting to register voters, more than once, and in more than one precinct if necessary. There were certain ramifications here in OH. I say no more.

Silverfiddle said...

Scott: Thanks for stopping by!

I'm glad you place the constitution first. That's as it should be.

Islam is a religion; it has a history and all the trappings.

Anonymous said...


Not to sound disrespectful or overly argumentative, but you really ought to take a good hard look at Melanie Phillips' LONDONISTAN, and read about the the recent travails of Holland's Geert Wilders, if you regard Islam only as a religion and not an aggressive, invasive, coercive, maledictive political movement bent on the conquest and destruction of OUR Civilization.

Instructions for this are all in the Koran. It is chilling, and unnerving, but then so, I admit, is The Pentateuch.

Best regards,

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: I have read Melanie Phillips and I am quite familiar with Geert Wilders as well as how the mullahs trumped up the whole cartoon controversy.

Again, good luck trying to legally declare that Islam is not a religion and therefore not constitutionally protected. It is. That certain radical elements have hijacked it does not invalidate it or to violate the rights of a peaceful worshiper who is doing nothing illegal.

I do believe Islam has proved to be a societal corrosive, which is why I wish we would restrict immigration from Muslim lands. Only a small percentage are troublemakers, but we are woefully inept at sorting the good from the bad.

Once they are here, they enjoy the same rights as all. Until they break the law, there's nothing we can do. Preemptive justice because someone belongs to a group and might do something does not fly under our constitutional system of government. See Wilson, Woody.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, SilverFiddle,

I appreciate your response, and frankly admire your temperate disposition which is more tolerant than mine.

I think you've defined the problem perfectly with these words:

"I do believe Islam has proved to be a societal corrosive, which is why I wish we would restrict immigration from Muslim lands."

AMEN to that, brother! I've advocated taking that position since 9/12/01. Only I would have moved also to deport all foreign-born Muslims then and there. We used to turn away innocent people who carried deadly diseases to our shores. Why we should not prevent the importation of those who believe in deadly destructive ideologies I can't imagine. It's not "hatred" that motivates me, it's only spirit of pragmatism. I mean why ask for trouble?

"Only a small percentage are troublemakers, but we are woefully inept at sorting the good from the bad."

Your last sentence, which I took the liberty of emphasizing, defines the problem perfectly. Since we can't tell the good from the bad, why allow ANY of it to establish itself here?

That "small percentage" you mention amounts to some 250-million people worldwide. That's a lot of people even if only a fraction of the 1.25 billion Muslims that inhabit the earth.

We don't allow Nazis to do their thing here, do we? And we have plenty of laws now against "hate speech" and "hate crimes" -- a concept of which I thoroughly disapprove by the way -- so why should we allow other aggressive, coercive, pernicious elements to establish a foothold here just because they hide behind a "religious" identity? It amy be "legal," but it doesn't make sense -- at least not to me.

Of course, I am old enough to remember McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, and while I never admired their "style," I realize more and more how fundamentally correct they were in their determination to root out and destroy insidious Communist influences which I believe are responsible for much of the grief we bear today. McCarthy, I think, got a bad rap. So did Richard Nixon. It saddens me that younger conservatives today, have blandly accepted the left's identification of these men as "bad guys."

Getting back to Islam, I see it this way. If you have a well on your property, you wouldn't want anyone to introduce a slow-acting poison into that source of life-sustaining water, would you?

As I said, I'm more of a pragmatist than n idealist at this point, and I really do believe the law of self-preservation trumps all the others -- even our sacred Constitution.

Thanks so much for letting us speak our minds without scolding or censorship. That's a tremendous gift, and from what I've seen so far makes this a superior blog.

~ FreeThinke