Blue Collar Muse

My post yesterday titled “Islam is Unconstitutional …” raised some discussion and comments here and elsewhere. Over at Digg.com, Matthew Williams responded with the following:

Wrong! Opression of religious rights is unconstitutional. Who is the author to say, “Enough is Enough”. Personally I’ve had “enough” of his spin. Advocating the reprieval of American Muslim’s right’s by citing events occuring outside of our country is pure garbage. Bulk em all together seems to be his philosophy. I find it funny that some people think only western nations have a mix of religion. This author is probably one of those who have uttered the phrase, “Nuke Iraq and turn it into a parking lot” once or twice. Not understanding that residing there besides peaceful Islamic people are Christians (Chaldean), Jewish, etc. Broad generalizations are this guy’s game.

I think the OP just wanted to up his posted article count by 1.

I started replying there but when my reply got to be post size I decided to bring it over here. Thus, my Open Response …

Matthew -

Thanks for commenting. From your comment it seems you spent a bit of time reading my article. Thanks for that as well.

That having been said, I need to correct a couple of your misconceptions. I did not say, “Enough is enough!” I asked, “When is enough going to be enough?” Presumably, regardless of differences of opinion, we can agree those are two different things.

Additionally, nowhere did I advocate reprieving anyone’s rights. I think the word you’re looking for is rescind. I didn’t advocate rescinding rights either. In fact, I specifically avoided offering suggestions for the solution of the situation I observed. I noted I had observed it, it was disturbing and then suggested we begin looking for options to deal with it. Surely we can agree the behavior advocated and practiced by Muslims as I’ve described it is serious and dangerous. Should we do nothing or should we begin the process of solving the problem?

You are correct that I’m dealing in broad generalizations. It is the nature of the discussion. We talk about, “The situation in Iraq” in broad terms. We talk about the GWOT - even to the point of whether or not it exists - but it’s still a broad stroke with a big brush. You do it yourself. You say “some people think” and “one of those who have” despite having no evidence to support your claims. At least I offered concrete, verifiable examples of what I was talking about. You did not refute them - you simply dismissed them because they happened “outside our country”.

Such dismissal is foolish in the extreme. Wisdom suggests we look at a man’s previous behavior or behavior in similar situations to help us evaluate how he will behave in the future. It’s called evaluation of character. Why not use the same valuable technique with a larger group of people?

As to it happening elsewhere, that is precisely my point. In the Middle East, where Muslims hold power and authority, this is what life is like for citizens there. In Western countries such as France, England and Denmark where Muslims have immigrated in large numbers, the same behavior is found and is increasing. The people doing these things state their intention is to bring the way of life they ‘enjoy’ in the Middle East to the rest of the world. They visibly and demonstrably implement those intentions daily in more and more places internationally.

I would say it is only a matter of time before they come to the US but that would not be true. It is not just a matter of time, they are already here. Perhaps you remember 9/11? The DC sniper? The man at the El Al counter in LA? The guy at the mall in Utah? The first WTC bombing? Maybe you’ve even read or at least heard about the teaching and preaching going on in US mosques? These are the sorts of things I’m bulking all together and calling a problem. For you to bulk this all together and dismiss it as non-US spin is irresponsible. The bad guys are counting on people like you to stay sleeping until the door they break down in the name of Allah is yours.

You are absolutely correct there are differences of opinion and different religions in Iraq. There are even a handful of Jews there still as I recall. Please do some research into the question, “What is life like for non-muslims, non-practicing muslims or those who dare to rock the boat not simply in states ruled by Sharia Law but when dealing with PEOPLE ruled by Sharia Law?”

Let me give you a couple of places to start. Check out Front Page Magazine’s ‘Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman’ The interview contains many specifics for you to consider, not broad generalizations. Here is the first specific you’ll find:

Next for your research I’ll recommend any story on Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. My original post referenced one such story, ‘Beating Freedom of Speech’ which contains the following:

Bouyeri killed van Gogh because of the filmmaker’s twelve-minute video Submission, which had aired on Dutch TV a few weeks before the murder. A collaboration between van Gogh and the Somali ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was then a member of the Dutch Parliament, Submission decried the mistreatment of Muslim women — and even featured images of battered women wearing see-through robes that exposed their breasts, with verses from the Qur’an written on their bodies.

Do you believe there are no Muslims like this in the US? That no one here will do things like this in the name if Islam? If not, what do you propose to do about it? That is the question I asked and still ask. You have not answered it. So far, I’ve not seen anyone on your side of the argument address the reality of the situation.

Here are a couple of other questions for you. To what extent do we owe others the protection of our Constitution? For instance, had Nazis come here and begun practicing their heinous form of anti-Semitism, should we have let them be because we recognize people are free to speak, write and assemble as they will? The courts have already ruled against white supremecists, just so ya’ know.

The crux of the matter and the only question you must answer is this. Do you believe all behavior is acceptable under our Constitution? It is a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question and only those two answers apply. If you answer ‘Yes’, we have nothing left to talk about. You are not open to reason or sanity.

If, however, you answer ‘No’, as rational and realistic people do, then you must answer the logical followup question, “Then what sorts of behavior would be prohibited?’ Our courts have answered that one, too. You may not yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater. You may not strike a man because his speech or actions offend you. You MAY, however, defend yourself from those who do. The reason you may is because what they have done is criminal, it is wrong and it is unconstitutional!

More specifically, you may not rape my mother, daughter or wife because she doesn’t dress like your religion says she should. No amount of appealing to ‘Freedom of Religion’ will change that fact. Trying to argue that it should makes you look - well, I think we all know the answer to that one …

Thinking people should think through their arguments to their logical conclusions …

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 37% [?]

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pm and is filed under Individual Responsibility, Liberal, Muslim, Terrorism, War on Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.