Redstate

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

In order:
(1) No, Koran not illegal. Just leave it alone. When the imams take the most inflammatory exerpts and make sermons and banners out of them, then you got something to address. But the Koran in total, just leave it alone.

(2) It's not the term "jihad" per se, that I think PJC is going after as the absolutely illegal totem (maybe? Paul?). It's gonna have some gray-ness as to where it crosses over from legal expression to advocacy of sedition. That's just gonna have to be what it is.

But that's true for all sorts of things. We all know what a riot is. But when does a demonstration become a riot? It's well before the first car gets turned over. Is it when the first rock is thrown? I don't know, but just because the exact location of the line is kinda fuzzy, you still have to shut down a riot and throw some people in jail.

If a guy wears a "Jihad Rocks" t-shirt (and IMO he's somebody to watch), I would say that was tasteless at the minimum, and inciteful anywhere in patriotic (GOP) country, but it is also a fact that the word "jihad" has some nuance, and we'd probably have to err on the side of free expression.

OTOH, if he wears a "Jihad Rocks" shirt with silhouettes of AK-47's and RPG's on it -- well, that is sedition.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

That's my problem with the proposal: It's a little too gray. I really do like the underlying idea. But something that restricts First Amendment freedoms needs to be tightly defined.

I'm not interested in imprisoning that T-shirt wearer for up to twenty years. I'm interested in going after the teachers who claim conversion by the sword in commanded by God. They're the problem, because they inspire religiously motivated terrorism, which can't easily be deterred. Someone wearing that a T-shirt might be listening to them, but I can't believe he's convincing anyone.

In my view, our hypothetical tee-shirt-wearer at least ought to be made aware that he might be vulnerable to a sedition prosecution. Maybe he wins his case, but he sure runs a stupid risk.

The legislative debate preceding the enactment of my proposed law would probably make him aware of his vulnerability.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

it's not illegal, but it bankrupts the ACLU and CAIR defending it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'm not interested in throwing the t-shirt guy in jail either. But I am VERY interested in removing the veneer of the "hey man, this is my free speech" from an expression that is clearly (IMO) violent and seditious. A $500 fine works for me. But if he sports that shirt into a mall where I'm shopping (in Texas, USA), he's gonna get his XXX kicked for it. And my defense tactic in court is gonna be that he's advocating the overthrow of my government, so I felt it needful to defend my nation and her honor.

But like you I'm much more interested in the teaching and actual inciting by people in leadership or authority.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Defining what we mean by violent jihad without the problems inherent in using a foreign word, would probably be best.

Hooray!

Already this thread is full of discussions over the various definitions of Jihad and their legality. Ambiguity resulting from the use of this word outside its cultural/linguistic context is a bad thing.

-jb

If laws can't be written so that they can't be misinterpreted by a person with an average education,
than they shouldn't be written. All laws that can be interpreted any which way do is cause full employment to lawyers.

(1) Hopefully we can count on our prosecutors, judges and juries to distinguish a peaceful man "struggling" against alcoholism or an addiction to pornography from an agent of our enemy.

(2) I think the symbolism of a congressional debate would stimulate the prosecutions I'm looking for. Such a debate would evidence of public opinion on the matter. We cannot expect much vigor on this from prosecutors until they have been given some sense of what the will of the Republic is. That is to say, legislative debate is a prerequisite for any serious action in a republic. This is what self-government is about, the deliberative councils of the people, acting through their representatives.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

(1) Hopefully we can count on our prosecutors, judges and juries to distinguish a peaceful man "struggling" against alcoholism or an addiction to pornography from an agent of our enemy.

So you accept the fact that some peaceful Muslims may be forced to defend themselves in a court of law to prove that they aren't radicals?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I accept that laws are blunt instruments, and subject to abuse. This is a fact of life and law.

But it is difficult to see why a prosecutor would bring charges against an obviously peaceful Muslim, as opposed to some wild-eyed imam on record in his calls for jihad.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

The more latitude a prosecutor is given the more likely he is to charge innocent people.

But let's be realistic and accept that the majority of people that would be charged with this crime do not speak English as their native tongue. So now that means that someone needs to interpret the accused words to determine whether he or she committed a crime. That is a dangerous path particularly when the vast majority of prosecutors and judges have very little understanding of the Muslim religion.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

but now the scales are tipped too far in the other direction. Surely the slope is not so slippery that we can make a directionally correct move?

language barriers should stop us from enforcing immigration laws also? After all, few of the violators of those laws speak English either.

Language seems like a rather poor reason to shy away from a law. Very poor. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it never has been.

I'm not referring to their understanding of English. I am referring to OUR understanding of Arabic religious speech. We would need to be able to understand it in order to prosecute them.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

so how do you explain our ability to prosecute the aforementioned immigration violators. Are you saying we cannot effectively do that either?

We do have translators. I'm sure that prosecutions of foreigners that are not native English speakers have held up in court in the past. A lack of understanding of English by the defendant does not prevent prosecution or a fair trial.

Yes, but do we have the will to find and employ them?

Will they step forward and uphold the law under threat of death?

I'm beginning to wonder:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1869884/posts

So you accept the fact that some peaceful Muslims may be forced to defend themselves in a court of law to prove that they aren't radicals?

The part you're not stating there is ".., presuming both the arresting officer and the prosecutor get it wrong, which is what it would take for it to get to that point in the first place".

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

You are assuming that the arresting officer and prosecutor also have a deep understanding of Islamic law.

Regardless the law, as laid out by Mr. Cella, doesn't have any exemptions for peaceful forms of jihad.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Why would this be important in the US?

Do you prosecute someone for engaging in Jihad if you don't even know what Jihad means?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

wouldn't the US law be the defining law? Why would there need to have knowlege of any Islamic law. Are we to be governed by some form of Islamic law? I know there are people who want us to surrender to them, but I didn't realize it had actually already happened.

We are putting an Islamic concept into our laws. So if it is to have any value it must have a meaning. So either we create our own meaning or we define based on some religious precept.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The Duke lacrosse players were completely exonerated, and the prosecutor that brought charges has been disbarred and is facing criminal counts of his own.

Sure the system may have glitched temporarily, but in the end it worked. How would you change the system so the Duke players wouldn't have been charged in the first place, without horribly breaking it in other ways?

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Are these the sort of prosecutors you are referring to? These are the people that show restraint and common sense in their prosecutions?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If we were to write every single law on the books in such a way that no policeman or prosecutor could ever bring a spurious charge, we'd have no laws available to prosecute a vast number of things that people get charged for every day.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

but that wasn't what you were saying. You were suggesting that prosecutors and police wouldn't press charges against non-violent Muslims.

We write our laws to limit prosecutorial abuse not give them vague terms with almost no basis in our law.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You brought up the strawman of the Duke rape case.

I wasn't suggesting that 'prosecutors and police wouldn't press charges against non-violent Muslims', I was stating that any such abuses would be few and handled by the rest of the system. That's what judges and juries are for. You seem to think that it's the law's responsibility for there never to be a rogue prosecutor/police officer in the first place, which can't be done without other worse consequences.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

I don't like vague laws that give prosecutors wide discretion particularly when prosecutions would be politically popular.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Thanks for your reply.

I see your point about legislative debate being a prerequisite to action in our form of government, but, in this case, we have already had the legislative debate on the general issue and the legislative branch has expressed its will through 18 U.S.C. s 2385. Now, it's up to the executive branch to enforce that law.

In other words, in my opinion, the legislative branch has already given the executive branch the authority to enforce the law in the manner you have proposed. Since the executive branch already has the power sought by your proposal, wouldn't a more fruitful approach be to get the executive branch to use that power in this manner?

We have already had the legislative debate on the general issue and the legislative branch has expressed its will through 18 U.S.C. s 2385

I'm not much interested in the general issue. I'm very much interested in the specific issue.

wouldn't a more fruitful approach be to get the executive branch to use that power in this manner?

I don't think so. In the theory the Executive Branch is not as subject to public opinion as the Legislative Branch. The former is designed to be insulated from popular passions, so as to insure fairness and independence.

_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Agreed. As currently phrased, this would clearly violate both the First Amendment (since Congress is making a law abridging protected political speech, albeit extremely radical speech) and the controlling case on political speech and threats, Brandenburg v. Ohio (too broad a prohibition, no showing of a likelihood of imminent lawless action).

Uh, I took my phrasing directly from the United States Code.

Even if you are right -- right, that is, about the Court overturning my proposed law -- how long will it be before it even arrives at the Court's doorstep? The speculation that the Court may disapprove cannot be a strong factor in the decision to debate a bill. Considering the mess the Court has made of the First Amendment, who can even dare to predict what it will do next?

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

I hadn't looked at the Code before I posted... probably should avoid that in the future.

I tend to be a bit of a First Amendment absolutist (is in when it says "Congress should make no law" it means "Congress should make no law") so I am not a particular fan of 2385 as just a matter of principle. However, I totally agree that it is worth debating simply as a matter of discussion true threat doctrine and the power of words and the potential of such a law to be un-constitutional should not deter debate.

That said, I feel like the current formation of 2385 is probably as effective and constitutional as it would get. A law that specifically targets the religious speech and practice of a particular sect is considerably more vulnerable than a law that attacks the content of the speech more broadly. I know you were interested in making the statute more targeted, but I think that may be counter-productive in arriving at a constitutional and effective law that targets this type of speech.

would have to acknowledge that, even if Congress is forbidden to write such laws, the states and localities are perfectly free to do so.

Just sayin'

_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Agreed. Though the doctrine of incorporation makes it more dicey.

That doctrine is an invention of the Supreme Court.

___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

if taken up by the current Supreme Court. I am not aware of anyone wishing to go back to pre-incorporation.

I will leave it to Muslims to decide where the doctrine of Jihad fits in their religion. I will not back down, however, from saying that it is a wicked and intolerable doctrine which ought to be removed from the protection of our laws.

18 U.S.C. § 2385 deals more with "general tenets" than with "specific actions." It remains on the lawbooks.

_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

If Islam truly does command its people to kill their fellow men and tear down the institutions of society, as you seem to imply in your usual way in your first sentence, then it can't be unconstitutional to ban it.

(I think you're wrong, by the way)

The First Amendment does not grant the right of any kind of murderous filth to wrap their evil ways in religion, and then get immunity from any attempts to fight their conspiracy to wage war against the free peoples of the world.

The classic question is whether it's alright to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire under the First Amendment. Murderers who wrap themselves in the Koran can't be allowed to SET the theater on fire under the cover of the Constitution.

Hooray!

Jihad means a lot of things but I didn't say it means to kill people. Some Muslims infer that it does.

Committing murder is a crime regardless of whether you cloak yourself in religious trappings.

I just don't see how you enforce such a vague law. What is jihad defined as?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Hooray!

Jihad is a core tenet of Islam.

The law, as stated by Paul, outlaws Jihad. That would be a clear violation of their right to practice their religion.

The term jihad is much too broadly defined.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

What if we didn't use the WORD jihad but instead used non-Arabic, non-Muslim terms to ban the practice of war, terror and otherwise, against the governments and peoples of dar al-harb, thus banning what the Islamofascists claim jihad includes?

Would you still claim it to be a first amendment violation?

Hooray!

I'd imagine that those acts are already covered by existing law but I sure don't have a problem with such laws.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

So your objection is exactly the same as pilgrim's above you? Why didn't you just give him a 5 instead of making your vague trolly post? Seriously.

Hooray!

And it is largely the same as a bunch of other people in this thread.

I wrote my initial post without seeing his comment.

Honestly, Neil, had someone else wrote exactly what I wrote you would probably have agreed with it without much thought. But you are looking for things are simply not there.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

believe that ganja is directly linked to their religion also. Yet we have outlawed marijuana possession (with the inexplicable exclusion of "medical marijuana" in some states). Should we legalize every behavior that some religious sect believes is critical to them?

And let's not turn this into a libertarian-charged discussion about legalization of drugs - that is not the point.

Criminal acts are criminal acts. The Rastafarians are free to believe that ganja is directly linked to their religion. However possession of ganja is a crime in this country.

We aren't talking about legalizing any behavior here. We are talking about criminalizing religious speech broadly because a subset uses that speech to commit acts of violence.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You change your argument depending on who you're replying to.

To me, you're arguing about the vagueness of the word jihad. Now here, you're saying the crux of the issue is that we're banning speech that incites people to commit criminal acts.

This is why I try not to reply to you, and wish others would ignore you as well. You're just here to play a game, it's obvious.

Hooray!

What are you talking about?

I have no problem with banning speech that incites violence. I have a problem with using the term Jihad which is much more broadly defined because some people use it to incite violence.

This is the same argument and only your lust to call me a troll, which you've done about 4 times today, blinds you to that point.

You so desperately want me to make some sort of wacky lefty comment that you can pounce on and when I don't you get frustrated.

When people make good points against what I said I acknowledge them, hardly the calling card of a troll. I make no bones about my purpose here. Why you think I am here to troll, I have no idea. You really think that I would spend 2+ years here to simply rile you up? Sorry but you aren't that important to me.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

He is a conflicted schizophrenic with dual personalities, one being a repressed conservative and the other a post neo-classical liberal with taxpayer remorse undertones but operating with flash memory. As such, he believes everything he writes in the moment. The fact that this combination produces a surreal experience for the rest of us, with out chemical inducement, is to be appreciated and enjoyed. The fact that he has survived here as long as he has is indicative that his shelflife is only exceeded by Twinkies.

So there!

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

"The law, as stated by Paul, outlaws Jihad. That would be a clear violation of their right to practice their religion."

By your logic, any law that outlaws something that violates a right to practice religion is wrong. So (at least some subset of) Muslims believe violent jihad is needed to "practice their religion." By your own statement, a change such as that presented by Paul would be an affront to their religion.

There are clearly places where restricting the practice of religion are acceptable. Marijuana laws are one. Outlawing jihad and shari'a are others, in Paul's opinion. Frankly, I'm not sure, based on my later posting that refers to the striking similarity between this and "hate crimes" legislation.

By your logic, any law that outlaws something that violates a right to practice religion is wrong. So (at least some subset of) Muslims believe violent jihad is needed to "practice their religion." By your own statement, a change such as that presented by Paul would be an affront to their religion.

Just because someone says that an act is part of their religion doesn't mean it is legal. If the act violates American criminal laws then the act is illegal regardless of whether it is a religious act or not.

However the term jihad doesn't equate to violence, even if it often does.

2 examples.

Imam #1 says "It is time for good Muslims to engage in jihad against the infidel oppressors and strike down the American government by any means possible! Death to the President!"

Imam #2 says "It is time for good Muslims to engage in jihad to purge their bodies of unholy foods such McDonalds Big Macs!"

The law as defined by Paul would outlaw both but are they both equally deserving of being outlawed? Furthermore the first quote is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

So what is the purpose of using the term jihad?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Perhaps if American cities were currently crippled by car bombs, or if violent American Muslims were burning down KFC's in Indianapolis on the weekends, perhaps you would have a point.

You see, the whole point of my proposal is to avoid this eventuality. Considering how far Britain has traveled down that road in just a few short years, I think I have ample cause for worry.

By the time we have American cities "crippled by car bombs," we'll have civil war; a sedition law will by like a bandaid on a shotgun wound.

Others have contended the 1st amendment was not meant to protect insurrectionists. I would be interested in seeing some proof of that. I think the 1st amendment clearly gives individuals the right to speak their minds against their government.

For Pete's sake, man: can you not see the distinction between sedition and dissent? As for your demanded proof, I submit to you the force of law we Americans bought against: Jacobins, secessionists, anarchists, Nazis, and Commies, each in turn. And yet somehow people can still speak freely, even "against their government."

__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Thanks for your reply.

"You see, the whole point of my proposal is to avoid this eventuality."

And the whole point of my arguing against this proposal is because if we enact laws like this, and be unequivocally open about our distrust of Islam, then the above scenarios will indeed become an eventuality.

I would never say we brought on the 9-11 attacks, or that our cause in Iraq has just brought us more terror. The evidence just isn't there to support such claims.

But I believe your proposals are going too far, and give terrorists exactly what they want: a war of Christianity Vs. Islam.

If you were proposing only these sedition laws, I suppose I would not be so forcefully opposed, but there are the additional notions you have advocated as well -- such as ending all Muslim immigration and having a government policy of being openly skeptical of Muslims without any proper context -- that strikes me as placing too much burden on Islam itself and not focusing on those adherents who pervert their religion to justify murder.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

"can you not see the distinction between sedition and dissent?"

That I think is the rub for anyone on sedition laws. We can all agree that the most egregious examples of sedition (like say Lindh) are easy to spot and hard to defend since they leave no question that the speech is targeted at directly causing the imminent lawless action that offends free speech.

However, if you look at the free speech cases around the time of WWI, you can see that sedition was stretched include flyers and speeches that couldn't reasonably be thought to include imminent lawless action but nonetheless supported the overthrow of the ruling regime or a dramatic change in policy. I am thinking of cases like Schenck, Abrams, Gitlow, and Whitney. In those cases, speech that informed draftees that the draft violated their 13th Amendment rights, criticized the US involvement in the Bolshevik revolution, urged worker strikes or support for political organization of the US communist party were treated as sedition, even though none of these cases involved any actual advocacy of violent overthrow and no connection to actual violence.

As someone said up thread, broad statutes like this one when coupled with broad prosecutorial discretion can lead to very very bad results, especially in a hyper-politicized environment. And when we are dealing with a concept as hard to identify and politically charged as sedition, I think that problem is even greater.

This isn't to say Paul's idea is bad, rather that caution and debate are sorely needed.

First, let me say that I am in full agreement with statement that "caution and debate are sorely needed."

But my reading of your example of post-World War I prosecutions takes a wider view of the world at the time: a world that was roiled by renewed barbarism and extreme revolutionary zeal. Americans may have overreacted, but I'll take our momentary overreaction over the alternatives in Spain, Russia and Germany any day of the week. The US came out of that revolutionary period with a pretty clean record: revolution avoided; to be sure, some injustice in sedition prosecution, but no wholesale persecution; and eventually a solid period of peace and prosperity.

A record whole emulating, in fact.

_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

the religion held by the terrorists, that the world should be forcibly converted to their religion. I understand that you hate that their religion shares the name of Islam, as you take it to be. But it does.

The First Amendment was based on a law in Virgina trying to keep Catholics and Protestants from using the government to support their religion at the other's expense. It did not consider cults of violence. And indeed, stopping the use of force in matters of relgion is exactly what we're trying to do: The creed of conversion-by-the-sword must perish, if liberal society is to survive.

As was said in the last such thread, no one is cheering that such enforcement could intefere with peaceable Muslims. We just don't share your certainty that this is a trivial problem. If religious people believe that God commands something, a goodly number of them will do it. There's something to be said for prevenient action.

Points taken, and I agree wholeheartedly with the idea we must eradicate the conversion-by-sword idea. The question is how do you eradicate such ideas? I believe through open societal debate, through the guarantee (constitutional that is) of certain individual freedoms.

You say this proposal is targeting the religion held by the terrorists. I think we should be targeting the terrorists. By the targeting the religion, we can no longer say we do not attack their religion. How would honest, hard-working Muslims consider such a proposal? Their opinions matter a great deal. No one here wants it to effect peaceful law-abiding Muslims you say, and no doubt. But it will have a TREMENDOUS effect on their view of America.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

much concerned with their view of America, except to the extent that they realize we're not going to put up with a doctrine that lends the glow of piety to virtually any cruelty or oppression, so long as it is in the service of the overthrow of infidel power, in short the doctrine of Jihad. Once they understand that, we can live at peace.

____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

1. That you are not at all concerned with honest, law-abiding Muslims' (including American Muslims) view of America is of much concern to me, because the hearts and minds of average Muslims is a pretty big bone in this war, with rather far-reaching consequences for the loser of that bone. As I've previously said, the information war of the WoT is all too critical, and this is certainly an aspect of that particular battle.

2. You are narrowing the doctrine of jihad down to one specific and violent meaning, as I and others have mentioned. You seek the eradication of the doctrine of jihad without considering your stroke is far too broad to be much help, and may in fact be a hindrance.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

You will note that the link you provide opens to . . . the very section of the US Code I cited in my post.

You will note, further, that your second question was specifically answered in my post:

Now in point of fact such an amendment to Title 18 would not change the law very much. Indeed, it seems to me reasonable to interpret current sedition law as proscribing the doctrine of Jihad. The vital thing, in my judgment, is that we declare that Jihad is unacceptable to our society; that we establish in law our intolerance of this wicked doctrine. The purpose is not just to jail Jihad-seditionists. As with any law governing morals, there is an important element of symbolism. If anyone rises to object to symbolism, let him investigate the common activity of the Congress of the United States, or indeed the common activity of any legislature.

Let him also consider well the controversy that would greet the introduction, and ultimate passage, of such a bill. Let him consider how the world would interpret it. Let him consider, finally, how our enemies would interpret it.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

You are outlawing mention of Jihad when used to overthrow the government? Does that make it "doubly illegal?" Why is violently overthrowing the Government worse if it is called Jihad? Would it be better if called "crusade?"

If anyone advocates violence against the US Government, you can prosecute. If you single out a specific religion in a criminal statute, you're going to have problems with the First Amendment.

...in order to make a law of it, you have to define the seditious behavior that you mean when you say "jihad". Once you've done that, what you have is the already existing law (plus what amounts to Twisted Sister lyrics).

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

like the arguments around hate crimes. So why SHOULD anything be "doubly illegal?" If the liberals are in agreement with hate crimes laws - that certain kinds of murder/rape/assault/etc. are worse than others, then they should be just fine with certain kinds of sedition being worse than others.

That's why RationalLiberals^TM think that hate crime laws are pointless.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

That doesn't mean "activate your backup account."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...ruin my whole Twisted Sister joke.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Very well spoken. That was the elucidation I was hoping for.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

40 years ago, Western Europe might have been considered a bastion and shining example of freedom and democracy. And look at it now. Their freedom was exploited.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

The constant efforts of Europeans to enable somewhat limitless immigration, grow parochial social protections, accompanying political correctness achieved through policy and an overall embrace of socialism led them too far down the road. They are now paying for an egregious inability to welcome new people into their society without making considerable changes to what makes them unique as a culture. They now face a fairly restive part of their population which has grown accustomed to special status and treatment. In any society that is a recipe for disaster. (In illustration, just look at how many gape and point at Iraq; Sunni vs. Shia, yet some Western countries create the same cultural dimensions, albeit less severe, through political philosophy.)

What makes many Western countries sustainable and attractive are their core principles and resulting ability to uniquely flourish. This is the reason people choose to settle (and break into) Western countries en masse. It is the attempt to corrupt those basic principals, through an over cultivation of variegated parochial social measures that obscures common purpose and distorts the very strength of a society.

Our Constitution was constructed based on past mistakes of others and purposely positioned to create a single nation. We can argue about the point in time intentions of our nation’s founders. Nonetheless, I find I somewhat indisputable that no matter who today’s or yesterday’s immigrant are or were, the intent was never to create special status, privilege or law for any particular group. These politically correct views, notions and protections are what liberals advocate. Provided they don't ever gain super majority status, we can hopefully continue to fight such fatally flawed and ridiculous policies.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

An excellent post. Freedom, conservatism and individual responsibility, all things I greatly enjoy.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I was raising the Western Europe thing in response to this from you:

However, we have something in this country I believe provides a relatively obvious hedge against radicalized Islamic fundamentalism; a chance to see freedom and democracy at work first person. That is generally not found in other parts of the world where their detestable fundamentalism grows.

I totally agree that Western Europe has wrought its own demise, through stupid governance and (in hindsight) a tragically naive point of view toward immigration and assimilation in the case of Muslim people.

I must point out that 'see[ing] freedom and democracy at work first hand' did nothing whatsoever to prevent the Muslim immigrant populations from importing their anti-freedom, anti-democratic ways. They just exploited the openness without assuming any responsibility toward citizenship in a free society.

Which leads to my most important point. Because of the example we have of Western Europe's failure, we MUST NOT REST ANY HOPE in the notion that the people importing sharia, subordination of women, etc, etc, will see how well freedom works and just *get it*.

Therefore we must aggressively defend what we have.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

You are assuming the failure of assimilation in Western Europe was by choice of Muslim immigrants. I would stress that assimilation has been a key failure in Europe because of the lack of avenues open to immigrants. Look deeper into why angry, disaffected young Black Muslims in the outskirts of Paris were/are rioting.

Upward mobility and universal opportunity are the foundations of America's largely successful and ever-changing immigrant history.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

In my observation here in the US, and from what has become of Europe, I say this: it is the natural bent of Islamic immigrants from Moslem-dominated lands to create their own enclaves when they arrive in the West, in which they replicate their own culture and ignore the freedom and democracy we offer. Women are anything but free, and proselytizing by Christians in those enclaves, well....there is a very large intimidating factor against that.

That is my personal, with my own eyes, observation in the Dallas-FW area. You conclude whatever you want to.

As for that "lack of avenues open to immigrants", that may have merit, I really don't know. But that whole thing in Paris was not about "angry, disaffected young Black Muslims". That was about Muslim communities establishing their enclaves as off-limits to normal national law and order.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

I respect your personal observations, and I can certainly understand your frusteration. We have up in da nordland a significant population of Somali's to say the least. Somali's are, on a whole, quite religious folk, and coming from such a violent region which has suffered full-scale societal collapse, they tend to be guarded against others and very protective of some very conservative traditions. I think that's all okay for now (as long as their activities are legal of course); as I respect your observations I also respect them and the situation they've come out of and into. These things take time. Refugees are often tramatized. Individuals from places of intensely tightknit religious environments often struggle immensely to assimilate. Must they assimilate eventually? I say most certainly, (to the extent we can all comfortably call eachother Americans without always picking the same ice cream flavor).

We should also stick to and protect the principles of what it means to be an American. Like when certain taxi drivers refuse to do their job because of their religion, we politely and unequivically say no. But it isn't like these issues have risen countless times in America's history, some cases far worse than anything we've seen recently concerning American Muslim assimilation. They have to be worked out in such a way that we respect eachother's differences and allow our American principles to work. Our principles are why we have created such a brilliant society.

And I'm afraid that much of what M