Great response George!!

Use of Old Testament Law to justify distorting the truth without acknowledging that the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ completely and totally altered the applicable context of those laws…that sounds like someone who either doesn’t believe or has an agenda.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/104/541/Are_you_prepared_to_live_under_Shariah_Law.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511361,00.html

The fact these attempts may ultimately end up unsuccessful (like tobacco lawsuits were . . until they weren’t) is not a reason to rest easy.

Without dwelling on any particular instance, what is clear as that the trendline is upward, just as it is for the occurence of homegrown terrorism in the US (see Fort Hood, Time Square, etc).

What is the appropriate response? For me, it is using our First Amendment rights, ostracizing, market and consumer power, and right to protest to inform the public about Islam’s less liberal moments and to make a stand for secular democracy. Thus, Sarah Palin’s reaction to the Ground Zero mosque, and that of the protestors, was an appropriate reaction; even a bit soft. (Robert Spencer’s longstanding reaction is highly appropriate, IMO.)

OTOH, reactions that involve taking away either equality under law or the rights of citizens who’ve done no wrong should be off-limits, and those who suggest such a thing should get a tongue lashing commensurate to the amount of liberty taken away from us. Such responses are the pride of Europe; cameras in every home and mosque bans the pride of those nations, and the hallmark of their response to Islam. Incredibly enough, it hasn’t done anything to stop them. Banning a mosque at Ground Zero wouldn’t make Islamists suddenly quake in terror at what America hath wrought, nor would it make them stop what they’re doing in disappointment that their evil plan has been foiled.

“Thoughtcrime” was (wisely) given a wide berth by the Founders: it is difficult to ascertain for broad groups, sometimes ascribed to those with a legitimate political disagreement to shut down debate, and more practically, philosophical agreement or assent to violence has never been a reliable indicator that a person will perpetrate or agree with said violence. People are inconsistent that way. Jinja Shintoism at the time of WWII had as a tenet harmonizing and subduing one’s own will to that of the emperor (who “willed” to kill us, natch). That in no way justified or ameliorated the Japanese Internment, which was still a land grab sanctioned by politicians taking advantage of racism, and relying on it exclusively would not have allowed for the many Japanese units that fought with distinction in WWII.* The Talmud and Torah call for the stoning of adulterers, and for a legal paradigm at odds with the principles of liberal secular democracy. Should we put them on Mrs. Brewer’s watchlist, or would a hate crimes bill be more appropriate? We have thousands of professors (count ‘em!) who hold the asinine view that an industrial laborers’ revolt, and the concomitant political changes they bring, are both imminent and good things. Yet, oddly, thousands of Shintoist Japanese mathematicians, mild-mannered Orthodox rabbis, and tweedy, badly-dressed Marxists haven’t risen up with AKs and RPGs in tow to demolish the Great Satan (though wearing a Che shirt in public is at least as bad, IMO ). For that matter, neither have millions of Muslim-Americans. If the great majority of Muslim-Americans are innocent of perpetrating or trying to perpetrate crimes against America, why should legal recourse be necessary or appropriate? It surely isn’t their ideas; if “blow up the infidels” is truly winning over liberal democracy’s robust and rich intellectual defense, we might as well pack up and let them win. If rising cultural supremacy and integration are a problem, restrict immigration from Muslim countries and kick out troublesome immigrants. If Muslims are prone to violence and criminality, jail the ones that are violent, or planning violent actions, as is done with other citizens. If they want to implement political change, tell them no. There is no reason at all to infringe on the rights of citizens, or violate equality of law, just because savages exist (a common thread in all societies, or so I’m told). Maybe I’m just cynical, but it seems a little too easy in the political climate for politicians to attach “or the terrorists will have WON!!!” to every freedom-limiting piece of legislation to come down the pike.

that you would be fine with an OBL AQ community center regardless of the fact that they want to bring about the end of our Republic and wouldn’t do anything to impede them until an actual criminal act was committed?

I am asking not what your feelings are (i.e. up to you personally), but am instead asking what you think should actually be done.

I wish you would have simply asked the question directly instead of all the “if it was up to me personally” stuff. Your response was roughtly analogous to a pro-choice Catholic–i.e. “I am personally opposed to abortion but believe that it is a legal right.” By analogy, I was asking you whether you were for legal abortion in all circumstances, such as partial birth, whether the life of the mother needed to be at risk, etc. From what I can tell, you are 100% any government action that would be taken to stop an OBL community center at ground zero. You called my question hyperbole because you wanted to avoid answering it with a more simple “yes.”

Your position is actually quite radical and contrary to First Amendment judicial precedent. We do not have to give adversarial nations such as Iran and adversarial organizations dedicated to our destruction such as AQ rights in the US. Your interpretation of the Constitution is that of a suicide pact. In past ages, the country has always drawn difficult lines but you in fact refuse to even try. In the cold war, we made distinctions between active Soviet agents conducting propaganda in the US and mere socialists, but the line was never easy to draw and there was lots of gray. From you answer in this case, sounds like you would not allow government to discriminate against KGB agents in the US as they exercise their First Amendment rights. If this is not correct, why not propose some actual lines to be drawn?

Libertarianism can only work when its application is limited to people working within the system. Forces outside the system, Iran, AQ, USSR, etc. need to be dealt with in a manner that is different from common criminals, mobsters, KKK, etc. If our open society is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of those who want to end our open society, we shall not have a Republic for very long.

But in a debate not so long ago that got into some detail, he wrote some things that were pretty alarming to me and changed my mind about Islam forever.

I really, really look forward to all these hundreds millions of moderate Muslims speaking out. This matter would be a really good one with which to start.