And what if it's true?

[danaeris]

A follow up to the previous post...

Right wing folks and I suppose this program that Michael Coren watched are trying to argue that there is a militant islamic 'problem' that needs to be 'dealt with.'

And what if it's true?

IF we continue to hold the values of free speech and freedom of religion as near and dear, there's nothing we can do about it.

Unless anyone has any bright ideas.

Comments

Free Speech/Religion and Militants

[arcticelf.livejournal.com]

IMO there is a real problem here, facing most of the western world. The solution is simple: we already have laws against all of the things militants (of any sect) do to achive thier perposes. We have investigators who are very good at figuring out who did what to whom and when.

We also have a climate where those investigators are prevented from persuing criminals because they are Islamic. Because it would be politicaly IN-correct to say 'This Imam's sermon is hate speach, he will be prosecuted for it, any one who acts on it will be prosecuted as well.'

There is a fine line between saying 'all those who follow mohamad are evil, and shall be delt with' and saying 'all those who are evil, and also follow mohamad shall be delt with'. Targeting specific groups for increased scruteny is a vrey tricky business, but there is a point when you have to accept that you have a large criminal population hiding behind some distraction, and this must be corrected.

For what its worth: There are several Christian sects in the US who I feel similarly about.

Evil in the name of religion must be treated the same way as any other evil. But those (if any, I do not know enough about Islam to know if one can be a follower and not support my violent death) who are not evil must have thier rights upheld, even if that means we fail to stop some of the criminals.

For those who slip through, and hide behind thier inocent brothren (assuming such inocents exit) we have a simple solution here: its legal to meet force with force, and a growing number of us are in the position to meet lethal force with imediate lethal force. This is little help to those of you in the UK, Canada and Austrailia though.

How sociaty deals with this will certainly be interesting, because the things being done now are either inefective, or no better then the problems they are supposed to solve. Personaly I think a greater emphasis on personal reliance to garantee safety and security is the solution, combined with the rather un-PC view above.

AE

"Your safety is not in the hands of Bush. Nor is it in the hands of Kerry, or Al Qaeda. It is in your hands."
~Osama Bin Laden on the 2K6 US election (my paraphrase, find me the original and I'll give you a cookie:)

Re: Free Speech/Religion and Militants

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, for politicians to back the cops they need to arrest extremist Christians and extremist Muslims all in one big sweep. They don't have the guts to do the former, and if they do only the latter they are being obvious hypocrites which is exactly the way to lose the War on Ideas that we've been doing for years.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Well, what did we do in the face of extremist Christians, Libertarians, Separatists, the KKK, and any other group who tried to infect society?

Basically, I think we let them say what they like, then arrest people who take the more extreme words into action.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Yup. Religious freedom ends where personal freedom begins. If you're calling for my death in a sermon, unless you can prove it's some kind of irony or sarcasm, that's conspiracy to commit murder.

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

I think a lot of Christian and Islamic extremist leaders are committing crimes by preaching what they do, and the root of our problems is that these people are not being arrested and put in jail where they belong.

[badoingdoing.livejournal.com]

You mean, if we can prove it isn't irony or sarcasm. It's important that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Unless this is different in Canada... is it?

Also, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that claim. According to this site, to be a conspiracy there needs to be an agreement to commit a crime--simply saying "I think you should kill a clown" doesn't sound like it's enough. But I'm neither Canadian nor a lawyer, so there's lots of salt that comes with what I'm saying. Can someone who knows more clarify?

re: I think you should kill a clown

[etherial.livejournal.com]

And they're all agreeing with it. That's the important part. "I think you should kill a clown" is an opinion. "Yes, you're right, I should kill a clown" is conspiracy. Either way, I'm pretty sure you have a good case for a civil suit for harassment or defamation of character or something.

[karenbynight.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't even agree with that example. Announcing that I should die is an opinion and should IMHO be covered by free speech even when espoused by religious leaders or other people who have the ear of a large group of people. Criminal activity begins with acquiring a gun with intent to harm.

But we're in agreement in principle if not in degree. Every time I hear people talk about Islam being dangerous, I remember the Spanish inquisition, and more recently, the abortion clinic bombings in the U.S. It used to be the mutual problem of christians and feminists to be unfairly judged for the extremists who claim the name; now we can add muslims to that list.

[badoingdoing.livejournal.com]

There's another dimension, too. An important and legal counter to abhorrent speech is more speech, for sanity and peace.

[yaksman.livejournal.com]

It doesn't matter why someone commits a crime.

If they gay-bash for Allah, or Jehovah, or Odin, or just 'cause some guy named Murray in the bar told them to.

Assaulting another person carries certain penalties under the Criminal code.

The same is true of murder, spousal abuse, hate speech, and all the other crimes that extreme theists are inciting.

Or maybe we could just ban religion as being too incendiary. ;-)

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

IF we continue to hold the values of free speech and freedom of religion as near and dear, there's nothing we can do about it.

I could not disagree more fully. It is indeed, the very fact that we will continue to hold the values of free speech and freedom of religion near and dear that there is much we can do about it (provided we don't lump PCness in with those near and dear values)

By demanding the full protection of speech and religion, we can avoid the witchhunts, we can avoid over-extending ourselves. By ignoring the religion of those who hate us, we can focus on the hate, and the militantism.

We do not have the manpower to take on Islam. We do have the manpower to take on militantism.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I consider myself to be liberal in many ways but when it comes to Islam I tend to not agree with most of my liberal constituents. The more I learn about Islam the more I feel that it's a threat.

Now before we go further let me explain what I am NOT advocating. I don't think Muslims should be placed in camps. I don't think we should ban their religion. I don't think we should kick out the ones already here and I don't think we should be burning mosques. I don't think all of them are out to get us.

That being said, I think liberals need to look into the history of Islam and recent events and ask themselves: would I be making all these excuses for their behavior if they were Christians?

The problem comes in what DO we do about it, even if we concluded that radical Islam is a threat? Personally, I think we should break off all ties with the Middle East, not let any more come over except for immediate family of those already here, and concentrate on assimilating those who are already here. Give Western culture and Middle Eastern culture time to get to know each other and meanwhile stop invading the Middle East and giving them more reasons to hate us. I think our only contact with them should be positive (food and aid), and we need to develop an alternative fuel from oil.

Do I think this will happen? No, we're headed for a collision of cultures and I think Islam will win because they know how to manipulate our guilt and they are willing to do anything it takes to spread their religion over the world, even if it means killing people. Even if it means killing all of us.

We're headed for a second Dark Ages.

re: I don't think we should ban their religion.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

So, you don't think Islam is a threat.

Re: I don't think we should ban their religion.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Because I don't want to ban their religion?

Yup.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

If Islam was the problem, we'd ban it. Islam is just a vehicle for their fundamentalism.

Re: Yup.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Um yeah. Don't you think you're oversimplifying just a tad?