Monday, September 26, 2011

We Do Not Need To Ban The Religion of Islam - We Merely Need to Enforce Our Existing Laws

The laws are already in place to deal with Islam.

1) The stoning to death of apostates is against the First Amendment protection for Freedom of Speech/Conscience - preaching for the stoning to death of Apostates is preaching against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the foundational Right upon which all our other rights are based, and therefore, preaching against the First Amendment is Sedition.

2) preaching the stoning of gays is a hate crime

3) preaching the subjugation of women, wherein women are deemed to be the property of men, is advocating Slavery

4) preaching Jihad against the Infidel is Sedition

5) preaching the use of Zakat as a part of the fundamental economic system of the United States is a violation of the First Amendment, separation of Church and State - so, once again, preaching in support of Zakat is Sedition.

6) Preaching a Dhimmi Tax is advocating racketeering.

If we were to, as a nation, acknowledge all these violations of law and enforce the laws together, we could close any Mosque in the United States which preached any of these fundamental tenets of Islam.

Acknowledging the reality of how these tenets function together would mean we could shut every mosque in the United States which is financially or ideologically related to any other mosque which also preaches these tenets. RICO allows for us to do that.

If we took our laws seriously, we would not have to add a Constitutional Amendment to do away with Islam.

Islam has not invented new evil. It has, however, institutionalized evil and given evil the "legitimacy" afforded to a major religion.

Islam advocates murder, it advocates slavery, and it advocates sedition.

Imagine if another powerful institution in the United States did these things.

Imagine for instance, that Fox News decided to start advocating the stoning to death of Muslims.

Imagine that Fox News systematically endorsed the enforced second-class citizenship of Muslims (in the manner of what Muslims do to women).

Imagine if Fox News said that non-Muslims owned Muslims, and Muslims could only marry, go to school, leave the house, drive, if permitted to do so by a non-Muslim.

Imagine if Fox News Chief Rupert Murdoch advocated that Muslims should not be allowed to show their faces in public, and directed all his news outlets to teach that a Muslim's voice was only worth half that of a non-Muslim in any legal manner.

Imagine if Fox News systematically, as a matter of Corporate Policy, advocated the Jihad-type murder of Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity or be subjugated as Dhimmis.

Would the United States Government not rightly intervene if a powerful institution were to advocate such ideas as a matter of top-down policy? Would not such an Institution, be it Academic, Media Outlet, Religion, or Governmental Entity, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

So it ought to be with Islam. Advocating murder, slavery, and war against ones fellow countrymen as a matter of policy ought to be quite enough to prove that Islam is in violation of the laws of the United States. We do not need to come up with new laws to cover old crimes. And, we should never succumb to the lie that a religion ought to be afforded any leniency in advocating crime, simply because it is a religion.


Punditarian said...

Excellent post, Pastorius! The totalitarian political ideology that is Islam hides behind a religious toleration that is based on a willful decision to avoid seeing Islam for what it is.

Unknown said...

There are a large number of governmental agencies which are run by presidential appointees. These appointees must be approved of by congress. What happens when the Congress and the President are all on the same party line is that the vast bureaucratic ship of state turns towards a direction that looks a lot like a centralization of power and a primary dominion. These are things which the founders of America sought to avoid.

Pastorius said...

Thank you for the kind words, Punditarian.

Pastorius said...

Here's what our current Administration does when it merely disagrees with the speech of a powerful institution (in this case the Ford Motor Company):