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 Mr. Cella advocates is directly contrary to our principles.

Concerning Europe, I really don't know what to tell you. The French can be a rather racist bunch sometimes, and anyone of difference can have a really difficult time finding a place in French society; the irony here being that the massive entitlement society has allowed literally millions who don't have a place to trend water for years. They have children who are born and raised in France, but they too don't have much of a place. By and large, those are the lot who are rioting, 2nd generation French who can be rightly called nothing other than French but who are still different, not welcome. I speak in generalities here of course, but only in the hopes of getting an important point across. Social mobility in Europe is mighty static. Read too of the Turks in Germany, where some people have pointed to a subtle educational apartheid taking place. As well specific cases of North Africans in Italy.

The Gypsy-Roma of much of Central and Eastern Europe are likewise facing an uphill battle in terms of assimilation (although the specific case here is far more complicated). I won't speak of Europe's past here, but even the current situation of European Jewry shows telling examples of how difficult assimilation can be in Europe. I've lived in Europe for many years, more than I care to remember actually, and this is indeed the deepest and most obvious contrast (to me of course) between America and Europe: the lack of mobility there, and the vast range of possibility here. I consider it my duty as an American to protect those possibilities so everyone has a chance, even the guy who runs my corner store and can't speak a lick of English (of course his chances would increase significantly with some ESL courses, but he doesn't need us to tell him that).

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Your analysis of the European scene is very detailed, and I'm going to tend to give you the benefit of the doubt as to how accurate that is. My assessment of how Western Europe is devolving into Saudi Arabia: European Office is less generous to the immigrants than yours. Such is the nature of RedState.

In part, I'm tired of conceding ANYTHING to a culture whose most visible portion has declared war on Western Civilization. What PJC is throwing out here is not a finished product, but really a discussion starter.

I want this message to be at our front door. America is the land of the free. If you want to come here and join in our freedom, you can. If you want to come here and suck up our freedoms while enslaving your women and planning to turn America into a caliphate, then go SHOVE OFF. How we go about this in structuring the legal end of it? Not sure of all the details. That's what we are kicking around here.

As for the "must they assimilate"? Ah, in all ways most certainly not. But they must NOT enslave their women, must NOT restrict the religious freedom of their own, and they must NOT make any plans to exploit our freedom and the democratic a/o legal system to break down American freedoms. On those points they must assimilate. Oh yes, and FREAKING LEARN ENGLISH.

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

The influence of Saudi-funded Wahhabism has been catastrophic, and I can prove that with my blog, Wahaudi. I track stories from across the globe that detail Saudi Arabia's expansion of militant, extremist Wahhabi Islam.
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com

I don't think Europe has ever been a shining example of freedom. 40 years ago there would have still been a long list of things that were illegal to do or say in Germany, for instance, that are not illegal in the US.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

being "tongue in cheek", since yes, it was not quite like the USA. However, it is nevertheless true that during the Cold War Western Europe was largely free and democratic, regardless of alot of things on the margin, and ESPECIALLY in contrast to the Soviet Empire and every despotic regime in North Africa and the Middle East.

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

Furthermore, the concept of jihad can (and has been) used in the context of struggle for freedom and democracy. Ergo, the doctrine of jihad might have useful purposes in this war. It certainly is a concept which has a deep and powerful meaning among Muslims.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I have considered what you wrote and it does amount to a balancing act: driving underground the lunatics who openly advocate violence vs. the very real possibility their words will inspire violence if they remain out in the open. This is where prosecutorial discretion would come into play under the current law.

The target of this sedition law is not the actual foot soldiers, so to speak, of the Jihad. Those here on specific plots are not going to expose themselves by preaching jihad; they must be penetrated, exposed, and prosecutors as our investigators have been doing -- careful police work.

The target of this law is primarily the recruiters and agitators: those who aim to inspire others to join the ranks of the Jihad. The Flying Imams and the Cartoon Demonstrators and the CAIR propagandists. To talk specifics for just a moment, I would be happy to see CAIR put out of business completely by such a law, or at least subject to much more severe restrictions.

But even with the former group we will have given our investigators and prosecutors another tool with which to resist our enemies.

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

under existing law. Time constraints prevent me right now from giving the link, but a recent indictment names either the group or individuals associated with it.

As to your main point, obviously the foot soldiers keep a low profile and allow others to spew their hatred and calls for violence. On the other hand, where those calls are made probably would be where the plotters would congregate. This is not to say that your goal is wrong, because successful or potentially successful incitement to violence must be stopped here and now lest we become Londonistan, but as a practical matter we also have to acknowledge it also will make it more difficult to infiltrate these Islamist hate groups.

I share your frustration, and am not some slack-jawed leftist or starry-eyed neo-con. Both groups have been philosophical impediments to enforcement of our existing sedition laws out of political correctness and/or misplaced idealism. Again, I think high profile prosecutions under current law of those who cross the line into incitement would achieve the same effect although the identification and capture of plotters will become more difficult. The bottom line is prosecutorial discretion now has led to limited efforts in this regard, and there is no reason to believe a tweaked statute would have any more effect. The immediate answer is political pressure on those who do not exist current sedition laws and condemnation of those who impede it out of ideology.

and it doesn't matter if it is under the guise of religious teaching. Inciting to violence is a crime.

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

calling for jihad? And, if your answer is that jihad also includes personal struggles, I would submit that the burden of proof is on the imam. Just like it would be on me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I think that's an issue of selective prosecution more than an issue with the law. Both are illegal, but a prosecutor is more likely to prosecute the KKK members then the Islam members for sake of not being unfairly labeled a racist.

I'm not seeing the Middle East take down the teachers of jihad and state-enforced Shari'a law. We had to politically intervene in Afghanistan to stop them from executing a convert to Christianity. And these are the relative good guys we worked to install.

I would withdraw all my opposition to our Iraq mission, if it including enforcing laws like Mr. Cella's there. I could see such societal change as worth a long-term commitment.

I certainly don't want to imply they are doing a good job, on the whole. Rather I'd say they're doing an awful job. But I still (and emphatically I might add) maintain Muslims are the ones that must defeat the evil (islamist terror) which has polluted their religion. Anything other than would be an artificial gain.

Look at Al-Anbar, how have we made these recent gains? What triggered the turnaround? Muslims taking a stand.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Unapologetically and emphatically, I reject (b). It is not within the power of one faction of men, or even one whole generation of men, to transform an ancient religion, throwing off the yoke of an enduring doctrine and its attendant institution. The Jihad is too old, too potent, too bloody effective to rest our hopes on its demise from within.

We must make our effort, to secure us from this doctrine and its institutions of war and slavery, first and foremost amongst ourselves. We must govern ourselves, which is our call as Americans -- to show the world that self-government is a workable system.

The Jihad threatens us; it is a wicked thing; we should demonstrate, as we have many times, that wicked systems and legal codes of oppression will not be tolerated here.

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

...that we need help from Muslims at all, or just the idea that it is *solely* in their hands?

If the behavioral aspects of law are already covered by the existing law, then the only substance left in your proposed law is the symbolism. How does that symbolism do anything to "secure us from this doctrine and its institutions of war and slavery"? It seems misleading to me to talk about symbolism as if it had some sort of practical effect.

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

There is more to my law than only symbolism. The Jihad is a new thing for us to deal with. There are aspects of it that distinguish it from our other dealings with seditious movements.

When Mormonism was first felt as a real threat, because of its doctrine of polygamy, Americans wrote new laws to address this -- laws that outlawed not only the "behavior" but also the promotion or endorsement of the behavior. Then guess what? Mormonism gave up polygamy, and became basically another part of the American mosaic. True story. Happy ending. There were some ugly episodes; it was not all pretty; but in the end, good was achieved and full blown civil strife avoided.

So in a sense I say this is how we help the moderate Muslims: by giving them a legal leg to stand on against the Jihadists.

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

I am pitifully uneducated about the history of polygamy laws, but I'm now inspired to learn more. The similarities and differences, I think, would provide a lot of insight.

That said, the difference that strikes me at first sight is that jihad, as a religious doctrine, is much more complex than polygamy. One could make a case that although the concept of jihad is central to Islam, the aspect of it that justifies sedition is not.

I'd argue that this sort of law would not help moderate Muslims at all, because supporting it would appear to be renouncing jihad as a whole. It would also appear to be acknowledging a "threat from Islam" as a whole, rather than "a threat from those who would twist Islamic doctrine for violent, political ends".

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

Basically this is what you are saying to all adherent of Islam

"If it’s so valuable for them to hold on to these beliefs and they don’t want us to touch on it, then we shall not, thereby preserving this culture of backwardness."

Taking this approach does not help moderate Muslims. You’re actually freezing this culture in place and thereby, without intending to, helping those tyrants in Islamic countries that use Islam as an instrument to oppress their populations.

Nobody has any problems with giving lots and lots of scrutiny to catholocism, mormonism, fundamentalism, etc. But when it comes to having any scrutiny about any part of Islam, then everybody is afraid and they won't go there. This is not consistent, and makes no sense.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

I just feel that it's more helpful to move things by pushing at specific conclusions (women's rights, human rights abuses, etc.) than jihad as a whole. Religions evolve in response to social pressure, but dig their heels in when confronted with perceived persecution. The whole evolution is going to take a long time, and I think we need to be patient and steady, and create a space for Islam to shift into.

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

My investigation of sedition law in American history -- which is ably narrated in this book, written by an author who I very much doubt would be sympathetic to my proposal -- tells me this:

Americans have (1) recognized from the beginning that the political problem of disloyal factions is particularly acute in commercial republics such as ours; (2) taken careful, serious, and by and large effective steps to address this problem, and address it without widespread persecution and abuse. In short, part of the American political tradition -- a part that, whatever hysteria our dear Liberals may introduce, we can really be proud of -- is the ability to crack down on organized sedition before it becomes a much more dangerous situation, i.e., civil strife.

Someone mentioned the WWI-era "Palmer Raid" crack-down. Well shoot: I'm not inclined to shed tears for some Communists and other leftist agitators, who got smacked around a bit, when the alternative, in that bloody and unstable age, was indeed Communism and anarchy and civil strife. Or again, the Alien and Sedition Act episode: forgive me if I'm not filled with embarrassment that Pres. Adams took steps to forestall a Jacobin revolution on our soil in the very infancy of the Republic.

But the fact is that the doctrine of Jihad is not the same as Jacobinism or Communism; there are important novelties here, which is why a new law, or mere amendment to existing law, is in my judgment necessary.

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

... as if our juries, judges, prosecutors (in short our fellow citizens) were unable to distinguish up from down.

If our juries, judges and prosecutors are capable of making reasonable decisions and can distinguish activities that are genuinely illicit from those that are not, then why all these proposals from you to specifically identify a certain classification of seditious behaviour in the first place? Either someone speaking and acting is guilty of sedition (or treason) under the laws as they are currently written, or they're not.

I may not read all your material; nevertheless I can't recall you making a well-supported argument for why current sedition and treason laws are inadequate. Indeed, by your expressed logic in your rebuke of Flyerhawk, you seem to undermine your own position. I see no reason why juries, judges, etc wouldn't be able to reach a reasonable conclusion using our current laws when presented with a case where an imam clearly committed sedition or treason - in other words, they could "distinguish up from down". Why don't you agree with this and discontinue your calls for more redundant legislation?

I have made several answers to this objection; one appeared in the original post itself.

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.

Also this point:

But the fact is that the doctrine of Jihad is not the same as Jacobinism or Communism; there are important novelties here, which is why a new law, or mere amendment to existing law, is in my judgment necessary.

Perhaps all the legislation necessary is one that directs the Executive to begin applying current sedition law to agents of the Jihad, in short, a statement of the will of the Republic set aside this instrument of the enemy.

I do not believe that my proposed legislation is redundant, for reasons I have enumerated. I believe very strongly that a declaration of firm rejection and intolerance of this doctrine is very much needed.

I see no reason why juries, judges, etc wouldn't be able to reach a reasonable conclusion using our current laws when presented with a case where an imam clearly committed sedition or treason.

I see no reason either; which is why I want legislation to move the Executive to bring such cases before them.

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

Then apparently, it's not that you find the current sedition and treason legislation inadequate. Your issues are twofold:

1) You want a symbolic and public rejection of a certain type of sedition/treason. Wouldn't a sense-of-the-congress resolution accomplish that, rather than additional legislation?

2) You want the executive branch to start prosecuting sedition/treason where you evidently feel they have not been. I'd need to understand the history of sedition/treason prosecutions in America better to gauge if the executive is really doing an inadequate job in this regard. I periodically see posters here declare that the executive ought to be pursuing treason charges against other Americans, e.g. New York Times editors and writers.

Either we need to single out yet another class of sedition for special symbolic status and heightened executive awareness (that of the media), or perhaps all of this just reflects the fact that America has traditionally been extremely cautious about the use of sedition/treason and that causes some people to get very impatient about their pet peeves. Indeed, as you wrote:

Americans have (1) recognized from the beginning that the political problem of disloyal factions is particularly acute in commercial republics such as ours; (2) taken careful, serious, and by and large effective steps to address this problem, and address it without widespread persecution and abuse.

So for the man on the street, how should he differentiate between arguments from impatient people with a specific bone to pick, and arguments from patient people that the Executive branch has a critical and imminent need right now to begin prosecuting citizens for sedition and treason?

Maybe some concrete examples of ongoing activities by American citizens that you feel should be prosecuted by the Executive because you believe them to be seditious and treasonous would help, especially if you can show parallels between such examples and past prosecutions for sedition and treason during the world wars and so on. I think that could help bolster your position and demonstrate that you are indeed taking a conservative view on the matter rather than proposing that America break with tradition and greatly increase the quantity and scope of sedition and treason prosecutions that are undertaken by the Executive branch.

I reject both of these statements:

the fact that America has traditionally been extremely cautious about the use of sedition/treason

proposing that America break with tradition and greatly increase the quantity and scope of sedition and treason prosecutions

The fact that you equate sedition and treason unnecessarily complicates matters though. I do not believe I have yet used that latter word. I am talking about sedition.

In a comment elsewhere in this thread, I provided a link to a book written by a Liberal that narrates the American tradition of sedition laws quite well. I think the book proves the opposite of what it sets out to prove, precisely because it is innocent of historical comparison. It criticizes Adams for cracking down on Jacobin sympathizers, while failing to take much note of the proto-totalitarian regime that Jacobins set up -- a regime immeasurably more brutal and tyrannical that anything even contemplated by Adams. It castigates the McCarthy-era prosecutions of Commies -- and hardly takes note of the massive institutions of repression, a thousand times for merciless than the Smith Act, set up by Commies in power.

Or, for more immediate comparison, consider the institution the Spanish set up when they faced a Islamic revolt in the 16th century: it goes by the name of the Inquisition. Or consider what sort of legacy the civil strife between Islam and the West produced in the Balkans.

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

That swooshing sound you just heard is the point flying right by you.

I don't have a problem with using foreign words in our law. We do so all the time.

I DO have a problem with using foreign words in our law that have no clear definitions. Are you going to define what Jihad means or just leave that up to prosecutors and law enforcement?

You readily admit that this law really wouldn't change much yet you wish to go forward with it anyway? Why?

You seem to be completely fine with inserting a word that has more symbolic value than literal meaning because you want that symbology to carry forth a new way to deal with Muslims in America.

I do find it amusing you attempt to flip this discussion on it's top and suggest I have no faith in Americans(I just can't get enough of being called an America hater in all its iterations). As I said earlier you don't seem to mind if innocent Muslims are arrested because a vague law was passed. And you don't mind because you have faith in our prosecutors and juries to not convict them. That's great.

Honestly what is enough to table the bill for me is the clear intent of the bill and the fact that you ignore any and all legal issues with the bill because you find the ends justify the 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

Please reread:

An amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2385 which, taking specific cognizance of the current threat from Islam, establishes that the preaching of Jihad is tantamount to knowing and willful advocacy of “overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States”; that whoever, in accordance with the doctrine of Jihad, “prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States” shall be “fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

I have indeed made the effort to "define what Jihad means." That you either have failed to read it, comprehend it, or accept it, is really not my problem.

You readily admit that this law really wouldn't change much yet you wish to go forward with it anyway? Why?

I have answered this question about eight times now. Again, the fact that you are insensate to my answers is not my problem.

As I said earlier you don't seem to mind if innocent Muslims are arrested because a vague law was passed. And you don't mind because you have faith in our prosecutors and juries to not convict them.

I do mind; and my faith is not blind; I only conceded that the bill likely to be vulnerable to abuse because that statement is true of all law.

the clear intent of the bill

Pray tell, as you understand me, what is the clear intent of the bill?

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

taking specific cognizance of the current threat from Islam, establishes that the preaching of Jihad is tantamount to knowing and willful advocacy of “overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States”; that whoever, in accordance with the doctrine of Jihad, “prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States”

First you want us to codify that we are facing a threat from Islam. I don't even know where to begin with that. You want to write a law that states that we face a threat from all of Islam? Perhaps we can call it the Crusades Amendment?

Secondly you are trying to equate Jihad with trying to overthrow the government? Why? Unless you are trying to expand the scope of the existing laws to include actions beyond fomenting violence and rebellion, you are simply being redundant. And if you are trying to expand the scope then what exactly about Jihad are you trying to criminalize that isn't already criminalized?

Pray tell, as you understand me, what is the clear intent of the bill?

You wish to codify our opposition to the Muslim religion. Rather than dance around the issue you are seeking a way to get everyone to rally around your belief that we are fighting the entire religion because the entire religion, at it's core, has principles that contradict the basic principles of our culture.

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 thought it was Jihad he wrote about?...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

....you are willingly or accidentally missing the point entirely. I suggest you either stop doing so, or leave the thread.

that last PH was BS

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

taking specific cognizance of the current threat from Islam

Not threat from terrorism or even from jihadists. Threat from Islam.

I understand the point, Jeff. I really don't know if you guys realize the implications.

FTR, I am not accusing Paul of bigotry. He has stated his case very clearly over the years that I have been here. And he makes some good points and, IMO, some not so good points.

But how many Christians even know what Jihad actually means? I sure don't have a very good understanding of the word and I have read much of the Koran over the years. So I don't see any value in putting the word in our laws when most of us don't know what it means and wouldn't even know how to identify it.

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

threat from Islam....a portion of Islam...a problemed portion of Islam... Man, you read what you want and don't give one bit about the actual message.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I read that as the current threat "of Jihad, which emanates from" Islam, and not the current threat "which is the religion of" Islam. Could be wrong, though.

it just works for FH to distort what was written...that's all.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

And how did I do that? How do I distort what was written?

Paul suggests we pass new law. Finding flaws in the proposed law is not distorting what he wrote. It is finding flaws in what he proposed.

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

on what Paul actually said. Yes, I do think you distort others posts and words to further your opinion....sorry, that's the way I see.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Hardly a post of mine goes by with a projected belief inserted into it. It is a limitation of the medium. Relatively short responses do not allow for detailed explanations of your views.

I take what I see and ask questions regarding it. Many of you see the larger point being made and ignore the details as being unimportant. However the details ARE important less we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Clear and sound points can't easily be "distorted" or "twisted" because they are clearly and soundly written.

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 have a problem understanding others words as they are written. Again, I'm not a moderator here...I just follow along. Others have noted that you have this issue...

Further, the fact that you think literal interp of Jihad...that we don't understand, from their mouths, is reason to be wary is just a load of dung. I, like you, have seen the videos, the undercover tapes of those scum...I need not to have some explain what an imam in the UK is really saying...I UNDERSTAND his WORDS...in plain English, they call for the death of innocents, and the destruction of western civ as we know it.... and I'm quite sure I wouldn't need an interp of the same scum if he/she were preachingdeath and destruction from a mosque in Detroit of Minni..

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

..."could be wrong", Flyerhawk--although I knew that I was not.

But really, now. In this case, you took a phrase, "threat from Islam" in a thread dealing with the "threat of Jihad", the specificity of which had been acknowledged by all commenters, and you attempted to open up a new front to explore Paul's bigotry against the religion of Islam. Is it because your arguments concerning the subject at hand were not gaining traction? I have been here long enough to recognize your MO.

Flyerhawk, when you soar, it is most often on thermals of your own creation.

For me to move on. You are about the 6th person in the past 24 hours to accuse me of trolling.

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

...of what I am saying. I did not accuse you of trolling in any comment. I accuse you only of predictability in your argumentation. Many commenters here find find some comfort and amusement, as well as irritation, in you predictability.

You are a civil commenter, and I wish you no ill. I am an infrequent commenter--you comment much more than I do--and my word carries little weight here. Of all commenters, my snark should roll most easily off of your feathers.

that when virtually every response I read has some sort of personal jab at me it gets tiring.

I am always up front with my comments and yet I am constantly told that I have agendas and looking for trouble.

Look over this thread. There are probably 6 or so people that have said the same things I have said. Yet my comments apparently deserve special derision. Why is that?

Attack the comments not the poster. That is the point of the no personal attacks rule.

I don't think your comment was particularly bad and generally I would probably snicker at it. But the fact that you, a person who I have always thought was pretty moderate and civil, feel the need to take a shot speaks volumes 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

that while I disagree with you and I find your logic flawed somemtimes, I do appreciate you being here. Your comments are civil and pleasant. If I am going to debate with someone, your demeanor for doing it is most appreciated.

...personally. I may comment on your methodology, or address a specific comment that you made, but that is as far as it goes. Perhaps I should have put a ;) after my snarklet. I'm more of a joker here, although I am very serious in my conservatism. Your comment to which I originally replied was low-hanging fruit which I--and others--could not resist.

Most of my time is spent tuning up two bicycle motors and a tricycle motor, so I have little time for more than the occasional hit-and-run. Probably won't comment again until September. Still and all, RedState is the first place I hit everyday. There's nothing like it. You know that, or you wouldn't still be here.

Like we used to write in our high school yearbooks, "Stay cool and hang loose, man. See you in the fall, and don't do nothin' I wouldn't do, and if you do, don't get caught!"

Here is a simple lesson in logic.

That fact that Jihad is a specifically Islamic doctrine, a novelty even, with roots in the very antiquity of the religion, does not mean that Islam is Jihad. Origin or source does not imply identity. The doctrine of papal supremacy emerged from Catholicism; is that religion nothing but the papacy?

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

Then why even mention Islam at all?

I think your intentions are good Paul because I strongly oppose any religion advocating violence of any kind. But I think that this bill would serve little beneficial purpose but would make the US appear to be openly hostile to Islam.

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

This meager comment is the extent of your contribution to the debate, so please, cut out the heckling and obtuse misrepresentation. You have said your piece; everyone has heard it. Thank you.

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

You wish to codify our opposition to the Muslim religion. Rather than dance around the issue you are seeking a way to get everyone to rally around your belief that we are fighting the entire religion because the entire religion, at it's core, has principles that contradict the basic principles of our culture.

So in the end you cannot even pick up on the distinction, emphasized repeatedly, between a doctrine and an religion. And you can only impute to me malicious intent far broader than anything I have actually said. Is the Muslim religion nothing but Jihad -- a religion of holy war, pious treachery, and holy subjugation, nothing more?

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

I don't think that you have a malicious intent at all. And I know you know the difference between Jihad and Islam.

But it seems just as clear that you feel that we are in a struggle with Islam right now. It also seems clear that you feel that Islam is not compatible with Western Democracy. I believe you have come to those beliefs based on intellectual examination not bias.

But that doesn't mean you're right or completely wrong for that matter. There are aspects of Islam that trouble me greatly. But I do believe that they can be sorted if cooler heads prevail.

As for the topic in question the word jihad means struggle. So unless you define it more clearly your proposed amendment would outlaw struggle.

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

We all know your objections. I for one think them trifling. But let them stand and keep your peace.

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

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

Well here's something we can do at home to show unity with our troops against their Islamofascist enemies: We can get together and ban the preaching of their ideology of destruction. Let's roll.

Yes. I would put it in stronger terms: this is something that republics usually do. If we the people do indeed believe that Jihad is (1) a wicked doctrine and (2) a clear and present danger, then by God let's go on record with our intolerance of it.

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

In WW2, we rationed rubber, metal, sugar, salt, and I don't know what all. We had hooded headlights and other black-out measures in place.

I'm afraid in some ways we are victims of our success in the GWOT. Because we've not been hit (except for few extremely small-scale things like a couple of snipers and an airline counter attack) we don't feel the daily pinch.

Our economy roars, the Hollywood pop culture is as putrid and vapid as ever. Our military, intel, and alliances [think Phillipines, Indonesia, etc] are aggressively engaging the global jihad with some success.

Therefore we don't really feel the pinch. Our sniping class is free to indulge in fanciful stupidness, and our Congress has flown past stupidity and now can be candidly called plankton-moronic, with IQ's in negative numbers.

Yet by comparison, the Congress is a veritable Linus Pauling compared to the national dominant press's Austin Powers.

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

(1) At the very least a demonstration that the republican will of the country -- the general will, in Rousseau's phrase, the deliberate sense of the people, in Publius' phrase, -- is set against this doctrine, and is prepared to take steps to make that will felt where necessary.

(2) I don't think we do; or at least I don't think we should carry on as if we did. American Muslims are Americans too, of course -- and as such part of the discussion -- but in the end the deliberate sense will rule, with or without their agreement.

(3) Primarily because of its gravity as a national security issue. Put otherwise: because organized disloyalty is an enduring political problem, and must be dealt with lest it fester into something more sinister.

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

Thanks for the reasonable response.

Your (1) sounds uncomfortably like a non-binding resolution to me. Declaring that we are prepared to take steps doesn't seem (to me) to accomplish anything practical.

To (2), I can only say that I disagree strongly, because Islam is not going to disappear, and it's only through the evolution of Islam in the minds of those who practice it that the idea of jihad as a rationalization for violence will be defeated. Your proposed law works against that by creating the appearance of threatening religious practice.

To (3), there are many arguments. One is that by muddying the waters of religious freedom, we work against the ideals that make America so cool in the first place. Another is that we don't currently have a serious national security problem with American Muslims, and that a law like this is more likely to increase the chances of it becoming one, by making people feel that they're being unfairly persecuted.

I'll leave it at that.

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

"To (2), I can only say that I disagree strongly, because Islam is not going to disappear, and it's only through the evolution of Islam in the minds of those who practice it that the idea of jihad as a rationalization for violence will be defeated. Your proposed law works against that by creating the appearance of threatening religious practice."

Absolutely and 100% correct. Ideas that seem so logical, I'm surprised there is such disagreement.

As long as we continue to believe Muslims don't play a pivotal role in the defeat of terrorism, there will continue to be war without much hope of deeper, more fundamental change.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

The unstated premise here is that it is within our power to transform an entire religion and civilization, to persuade or force it to renounce something that has been organically connected to it from the beginning.

In terms of pure power politics, the Jihad is the most effective imperial instrument ever conceived by the avarice and fanaticism of man. What reckless idealism to think that it will be willingly given up by means of Western generosity!

There was Jihad when Western political ideals centered on theological and ecclesiology. There was jihad when they centered on crusades; when they centered on Classical and Greek learning; when they centered on Feudalism, Monarchy, Nationalism, Democracy -- each in turn. Saint Francis of Assisi walked through the camps of the Saracens late in the Crusading Age, trying to convert them from Jihad. He hardly made a dent. The antiquity and endurance of this institution is one of the first facts of history.

The idea that our survival and prosperity depend on a potential Islamic Reformation of some kind, is wishful thinking of a really base order.

there will continue to be war without much hope of deeper, more fundamental change

That may be true, but for God's sake let's keep that war from coming to our shores!

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

Thanks for your reply.

"The unstated premise here is that it is within our power to transform an entire religion and civilization, to persuade or force it to renounce something that has been organically connected to it from the beginning."

Precisely the unstated premise I wholly reject, but thanks for uncloaking it. It is folly to think we, as in America, can transform the the religion of Islam, dangerous folly. The onus is on Muslims to transform their faith into a modernizing and peaceful religion (which can still embrace the concept of jihad, I might add). We can only provide an arena in which they may do so.

Especially folly, Mr. Cella, considering your historical examples of the failures in excising jihad from Islam. Jihad was present in the religion's inception, what do you think some legislative symbolism will achieve? I think it will achieve a whole lot of unnecessary anger and hatred, by Muslims and by folks who respect the sanctity of the 1st Amendment.

"In terms of pure power politics, the Jihad is the most effective imperial instrument ever conceived by the avarice and fanaticism of man. What reckless idealism to think that it will be willingly given up by means of Western generosity!"

Firstly, I'm more inclined to believe Nazism is the most effective imperial instrument ever conceived by the avarice and fanaticism of man. The Mongol horde also kind of blows jihad right out of the water. I can't help but submit once more that the concept of jihad is a multifaceted one, and you choose to narrow it down to one convenient interpretation.

Secondly, concerning Western generosity, I never made such an assumption, but I will respond that I consider it reckless idealism on YOUR part that you believe jihad will be excised by reforming the laws of the American Republic. And indeed reckless idealism on your part that you believe it will not have altogether negative consequences in the War on Terror.

"there will continue to be war without much hope of deeper, more fundamental change -me

That may be true, but for God's sake let's keep that war from coming to our shores!"

This, Mr. Cella, is in part an information war, and if you haven't noticed, it's already here. Specific proposals you have outlined will merely act as agents to intensify and exacerbate that war. And provide no aide to us.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Nazism lasted 30 years; Jihad has lasted 1400. Huge segments of the Asiatic "hordes" we call Mongols were in fact converted to Islam, and became some of the most fearsome soldiers in the Jihad.

The onus is on Muslims to transform their faith into a modernizing and peaceful religion

What onus? Why should they do this? What if most Muslims are pretty much settled on what their religion is? What if the real onus they feel is the strident shouts of the Jihadists? These possibilities cannot even be considered? Some of the most fanatical jihadists we have seen come from the very cradle of Western democracy and freedom, Great Britain.

Specific proposals you have outlined will merely act as agents to intensify and exacerbate that war. And provide no aide to us.

I have explained in great detail now why I do indeed think they will aide us -- aide us not least in applying the very pressure that will supply the onus you are looking for.

The war is already here, you say? Indeed it is, but not to the extent that it is in Britain. It could get much worse, both here and there. Which is why I have also called from an end to Islamic immigration. Until such time as we are confident this religion has gotten it's act together, we just can't trust it. That's the way it is.

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

Some of the most fanatical jihadists we have seen come from the very cradle of Western democracy and freedom, Great Britain.

Given recent polls, to a lesser extent the same applies here to many native-born Muslim-Americans. These polls show Muslim immigrants tend to be more opposed to, say, suicide bombers than native-born Muslims. I can only speculate those immigrants have fled theocratic countries where the definition of "jihad," for example, is unambiguous and oppression is tremendous. So where does the radical pathology of many native-born Muslims emanate? If sedition is indeed stronger among those born here than those who immigrate here, perhaps we need to look at the reason behind it.

While I tend to agree that immigration from Islamic nations, and particularly terror-sponsoring states, deserves suspension except in limited cases until applications can receive heightened scrutiny, it appears the problem is within. Obviously we shouldn't compound it, but there is a great need to identify what has infected the native populations.

Once more, thanks for your reply.

I also appreciate you uncloaking your other belief that we simply cannot trust Islam. This is the greatest weakness in your thought, I believe.

As for the Nazi's, they did kill millions of course in a span of time that is a mere blink in human history. Much to be said for that. You and I know they made showers and ovens expressly for this purpose. If you know a greater act of terror upon humanity, a more murderous tool of imperial desire and avarice, I would be most welcome to your reply.

I was speaking of the Mongols in particular not of the more general history of Asiatic invasions of Europe. The Mongols of course only converted to Islam after much of their conquests had been consolidated, and that was obviously true for only a segment of the Mongol empire.

If you want to speak of the Asiatic invasions generally, you would be hard pressed of course to prove jihad was a central component to this terror. The Magyars were among the fiercest tribes and fighters. Once they settled in the Carpathian basin they converted to Christianity, not Islam, under the direction of Szent Istvan. Particular Asiatic tribes that did convert to Islam have similar parallels, meaning: it is not Islam or Christianity which defined their brutality or terror (where there was of course brutality or terror), it was a nomadic and warlike culture which preceded these conversions.

Your concerns about Muslims understanding and accepting the onus to transform their faith is a real and valid concern I share with you; and indeed this is, I believe, where we can be of great help. Our society, and the great principles of democracy and freedom which we respect and protect, is in a unique position to argue the need for change. In short, we can prove to Muslims that transformation of Islam is necessary, but still resign ourselves to the fact that only Muslims can in the end transform their faith.

Arguing that transformation is necessary is in fact what the War on Terror is all about. If we understood this notion fully, and sought to strengthen Islam from within (by supporting Muslims who seek to transform their faith, even THROUGH the concept of jihad) we would be well on our way to solving the most critical problem of our time.

I can't help you see these things, clearly. My only hope is to stem in some part your sway over others. I respect the fact that you love your country and wish her well, I just cannot respect your proposals, nor do I think they serve our ends of winning the War on Terror, and living in peace with Islam.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Hey man, I've been expressing by distrust of Islam on this website for well-nigh two years.

Arguing that transformation is necessary is in fact what the War on Terror is all about.

I deny that transformation is necessary, because I doubt that it is possible. I'm not interested in meddling with the Islamic faith, again because I doubt that it is within our power to greatly affect it. All the vigor and piety and aggression and confidence is with the radicals. In a few short years Great Britain has become a haven for agents of the Jihad. Does it not give you pause that all the blessings of liberty and democracy there have failed to turn the radicals from the Jihad?

The overarching principle of my recommended policy toward Islam is isolationism: not of us, but of it. Thus my call for an end to Islamic immigration (a call I first made about 18 months ago). Thus my skepticism of the Iraq war. Thus my desire to legislate against the specific doctrines within Islam that enjoin treachery and slaughter.

That the term jihad can be used to signify the peaceful struggle for virtue is another fact that does not much concern me. If, under my proposed law, a man writing about his jihad against his alcoholism were arraigned by some zealot of a prosecutor, my hope is that the grand jury would refuse to hand down an indictment; failing that, that the judge with throw out the charges; failing that, that a jury of Americans would return a not guilty verdict; failing that, that he would win on appeal.

I am not so naive as to expect that such an unjust prosecution would never happen; but I am confident, based on my reading of the history of sedition law, that it will not be systematic; and that it will be far outweighed by the very just and righteous prosecutions.

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

That you deny the transformation of Islam is necessary, deny that it is even possible at all, that you are skeptical of our mission in Iraq -- well, some of your previous arguments have just tumbled flat like a house of cards.

I should remind you of your words:

"The unstated premise here is that it is within our power to transform an entire religion and civilization, to persuade or force it to renounce something that has been organically connected to it from the beginning."

I read: 'It is within our power to transform' as meaning: America can change Islam.

Do you care to reconcile these passages?

If indeed you really do not care about the state of Islam, and indeed only interested in isolated it from us, then you just simply do not offer very much to the debate, save for the recommendation we just close our doors and forget about the world.

But, you know, those who DO care (including our soldiers in the Middle East and Afghanistan) deserve a lot better.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I'm sorry for the confusion, but the reason I pointed out the "unstated premise" is that I reject it. Or least I am deeply skeptical of it. We hardly have the power anymore to assimilate people from basically Christian societies like Mexico, much less to undertake the vast transformation of an entire civilization.

In short, America cannot change Islam, cannot by some surgery remove the cancer of Jihad. The Jihad was made long ago; to paraphrase Elrond, it cannot be unmade by any craft we here possess.

he recommendation we just close our doors and forget about the world

Except, of course, that I made no such recommendation. We attempted, with some real if uneven success, the containment of Communism without "forgetting the world."

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

I'm sorry I misunderstood you here.

I suppose what it comes down to in the end is that I believe in the transformative powers of open societies and freedom here and elsewhere, and that America plays a unique role in advocating for, and helping others achieve, democracy and peace. You believe Islam cannot be reformed and you feel the need to protect America from this faith.

I will stand by my belief that the reform of Islam into a faith that does not tolerate oppression and terror is possible, extremely difficult, but possible, and is happening without you. Your policies would be an obstacle to that hard work. Again, what would you say of your proposals to those in Al-Anbar who are now working with us?

Extended time in some of the Islamic World has allowed me to see fruits of this hope. I have spent time in, and been impressed by calls for change in, such places as Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, UAE, Turkey, Egypt and Malaysia. If we enacted certain policies here like ending Muslim immigration or passing jihad sedition laws, I'm afraid it would be a disaster for those working on peaceful change in these places. The actions of America have a tremendous effect on Muslim attitudes.

Lastly, with regards to Communism, it was of course a political ideology adopted by states, therefore a much more straightforward process of containment was adopted. Though you might find paralells in political aspects of Islam, such as Sharia, containment of Islam in America is not only against our principles and our 1st Amendment, but far more difficult to contain.

Containment of jihad is just plain folly. The containment of philosophical and spiritual concepts? Surely you see the difficulty.

You want to argue for legislative policies which will anger a great many people and make America no safer. All because you believe Islam cannot be reformed and you want to protect America from this faith.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

"why do they hate us?":

If we enacted certain policies here like ending Muslim immigration or passing jihad sedition laws, I'm afraid it would be a disaster for those working on peaceful change in these places. The actions of America have a tremendous effect on Muslim attitudes.

Our domestic policies must not be determined by how foreigners view them. This is not to say Paul is necessarily right (although when it comes to Muslim immigration from terror-sponsoring mations, perhaps you need to talk to our men and women in al-Anbar about why they are there while this insanity occurs under a "wartime" president). If we don't care enough to protect our own country through smart immigration policies and prosecution of those who advocate its violent overthrow, we don't need troops in harm's way around the Middle East under the pretext that protection of the homeland is the goal there.

That's not to say we can completely divorce our domestic policies completely from our foreign policies, but if we knuckle to threats perceived or real simply because "they might hate us," God help us because the current Administration is indistinguishable from what a Kerry Administration would have been in that regard.

Should we poll the Middle East to see exactly how many people from there we should allow to immigrate, and how much internal violence or incitement we should tolerate here?

Good God.

This is my fear here, that these policies advocated by Mr. Cella blind individuals who otherwise understand the dire nature of the terrorist threat. It's NOT about Muslims abroad determining our policy here. It is about us formulating a policy that works for the War on Terror, there and here.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

It's NOT about Muslims abroad determining our policy here. It is about us formulating a policy that works for the War on Terror, there and here.

If you carefully consider what you have written, that is precisely what you have proposed. And to follow that logic down the rabbit hole, we cannot tailor our immigration laws to reflect the reality that our screening remains pathetic and migration from terror-originating states has continued.

I'm not blinded by anything Paul has written. I don't even agree that it is necessary to amend our sedition law, only to enforce it. But even that has not taken place because of this mindset. There is a difference between foreign policy being a consideration in the formulation of domestic policy, and it being determinative. I am afraid what you support is the latter.

You cannot claim to fight a global war on terror if that struggle only starts beyond our borders and points of entry.

I really can't see what you are saying. I propose the way to fight Islamist terror is by sticking to our principles and strengthening Islam so it can find its path to a peaceful faith. I maintain only Muslims can do that and we can help greatly.

I do not claim that the struggle only starts beyond our borders. Do I?

But I'd like to hear it from you, what 'precisely' am I proposing? That we just do what makes Muslims happy? Do our best to not tick them off just so we don't face the anger? Am I saying that?

STOP TWISTING MY POSTS

The fantastic level of ignorance here in this thread has gotten the best of me, and I must now step away.

By the time I come back, surely you will have all distorted me into a goddamn terrorist. Good luck with your convictions, folks.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

nt

...about how the thread went for you. But you can take comfort in the fact that you're right.

You state the good ends you believe in that the reform of Islam into a faith that does not tolerate oppression and terror is possible, extremely difficult, but possible. But then you make the collossal error that to achieve this end we must timidly avoid a challenge or a scrutiny to any and all activities by the adherents of Islam. You are not helping moderate Muslims around the world who suffer under tyrants that use Islam as a political tool to oppress them by basically freezing some of the backwardness of their culture in place. I object to a law created that uses arabic words like jihad or fatwa or sharia. I do not object to a law that makes it a crime to exhort people to go out and kill and do bodily harm to people. I do not object to a law that makes it a crime to subject women to bodily harm for their choice of clothes or attitudes. When moderate Muslims around the world see that there is a choice that will embolden them toward reform a lot more than when they see the oppressors having their way even in America.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

"But then you make the collossal error that to achieve this end we must timidly avoid a challenge or a scrutiny to any and all activities by the adherents of Islam."

That is an insane distortion of what I have been saying. Quote me where I have said we must avoid challenging or scrutinizing the activities of Muslims.

The funny things is, I do not disagree at all with the remainder of your post.

FYI: those laws you do not object to already exist in this country.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

"The containment of philosophical and spiritual concepts? Surely you see the difficulty.

You want to argue for legislative policies which will anger a great many people and make America no safer."

That was the quote that fired me up to give my reply.

It is most assuredly a containment of the spiritual concepts for Muslims living in America to not do any bodily harm to the women because of the fashions and attitudes that they choose.
Some Muslims will protest laws like this based on their concepts of their religion.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

"The overarching principle of my recommended policy toward Islam is isolationism: not of us, but of it. Thus my call for an end to Islamic immigration (a call I first made about 18 months ago). Thus my skepticism of the Iraq war. Thus my desire to legislate against the specific doctrines within Islam that enjoin treachery and slaughter."

Paul, this statement encapsulates the 'skepticism' regarding the Iraq War. Some are asking "What's the point?" if we have no hope of creating an ally in the Islamic world.

I'm not so pessimistic. And I don't think we have a choice. Isolating a Billion+ people of the Islamic faith will be harder than slow and steady engagement over the next 20 or so years. Hmmm, even a thousand years of learning to coexist will be easier than shutting out a billion Muslims.

I am curious to how you would accomplish this. Who would set the standards for this "transformed" Islam... Billy Graham, the Pope, how about the Dalai Lama? I am sure their suggestions would be well accepted even by the most moderate of the Islamic faith.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/the_jihad_sedition_law#comment-49095...

You should probably read the entire thread, but I know it's getting to be a long one.

I didn't say it was easy by the way, I only said it was necessary for peace with Islam. I have also said only Muslims can transform their faith. A bone of contention with Mr. Cella and others.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

the "we" part of strengthening Islam, but the rest of the thread just heightens my angst. Many of the suggestions you make about the interaction with peaceful Muslims already occur, but unfortunately it is not the peaceful Muslims that are waging a terrorist war against the world.

I see no logic in wasting my time strengthening a religion to fight jihadist doctrine in my country when it would be much easier to deny entrance to it's advocates in the first place.

However, I am all for having a strength and training program for Muslims here in the States that want to go abroad to teach their stronger more peaceful brand of Islam to those extremists who are sworn to our destruction.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

"but unfortunately it is not the peaceful Muslims that are waging a terrorist war against the world."

Peaceful Muslims are the only ones who can win that terrorist war.

And they need our help.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I have also yet to see a response of substance on this point (but I may have indeed missed something):

"I can't help but submit once more that the concept of jihad is a multifaceted one, and you choose to narrow it down to one convenient interpretation."

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

you'd like the consequences. If attempts to shape Islam from outside are doomed to failure, then we're down to two options:

* Resigned acceptance to whatever we suffer from it.
* Getting rid of it to the extent possible.

I don't think Option 1 has a long shelf life, especially when terrorist attacks continue. 9/11 is not going to be the final big Islamic-terrorist attack in this country.

Option 2 means the persecution of Islam as a whole - not only refusing all immigration, but getting as many Muslims to leave the United States as possible.

Are these really better options than attacking the doctrine of jihad-by-violence? Who knows, it might even help internal opposition. I grant there are Middle Eastern clerics who will really, really hate this - but they really, really, hate us already.

I believe there is a 3rd option, which is helping our Muslim brothers and sisters to break out of the cycle of spiritual famine and self-destructiveness by strengthening Islam from within. A complex option which might entail:

-unwavering commitment to the War on Terror and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan

-using the concept of jihad to locate and pursue the struggle for peaceful understanding and equality

-promoting inter-faith dialog

-stressing our solidarity with peaceful Muslims and our understanding and promotion of Islam

-highlighting the success and stability of Muslim Americans

-stressing the War on Terror must be won by Muslims (which I happen to think would shock and delight a great many in the Islamic World who see and respect our mission, but feel as if they are watching from the outside)

-use much of the above ideas to formulate a comprehensive response to much of the misinformation consumed in the Islamic World today. Developing arenas and pools of reliable information in such mediums as the internet, television and newspapers that are formed from an Islamic perspective for a Muslim audience. We've been trying, but we can do much much better.

In short, all the things I have been advocating. I not only see this as a 3rd option to yours above, but as the only real way toward peace.

Two disclaimers here:

1. I am not Muslim but my wife is.

2. I worked for many years at RFE/RL, and so I have a particular interest in the use and misuse of information.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Why do you think Paul's law is related with hate crimes laws?

Hooray!

...but to summarize:

The proposed law does not add anything to the current law in terms of illegal behaviors, but merely specifies one instance of an already illegal behavior. "Hate crime" laws are similar, because they don't specify any new behaviors.

One difference is that Paul does not seem to be suggesting that any behavior be made "more illegal", as hate crime laws do. But that difference only makes Paul's law less meaningful and practical.

I'd say that what's wrong with Paul's law is the same thing that's wrong with hate crime laws: the attempt to address what's behind the behavior rather than just the behavior itself.

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

The practical effect of point 1 would be to instruct the courts that should any prosecutor attempt to arrest, convict, and possibly deport preachers of violent jihad, to challenge them is to challenge the authority of the Congress.

It means they can't just interpret the law differently. They'd have to overturn the law and set up a Constitutional showdown.

And while that doesn't sound like a big deal, I have to think not every judge is willing to do that.

Hooray!