Can we ban Islam?
To protect “Islamic rights,” therefore, means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion.
White Rose Magazine recently asked me to explore the subject of the legal status of Islam and I dived into that in the article Can We Ban Islam.
The article looks at the status of religion and the parameters of what kind of illegal activities operating under the color of religion that the government can take action against.
“The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a state religion, around the world and in America as well.
Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the U.K. have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.
This would, in effect, turn Islam into an established religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment. Furthermore, Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect freedom of speech and the press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect “Islamic rights,” therefore, means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.”
Wellington says
Even if Islam can eventually be denied First Amendment protection (which I am very dubious of), this cannot happen unless Islam is first characterized as something malevolent. After all, if Islam is not evil (it is but it must be widely seen to be such), then trying to strip it of First Amendment protection will go nowhere.
No doubt about one thing and that is that Islam will use Constitutional freedoms and rights to destroy Constitutional freedoms and rights. It is the ultimate parasite, better disguised than any other totalitarian ideology such as Nazism or Marxism, and will forever remain a mortal enemy of liberty. Right now, it’s kinda’ got us by the balls and it knows it does.
What a wretched belief system Islam truly is. None worse. Much more trouble ahead.
✝️ Christian ✝️ says
If the mass rape and/or impregnation of pure-blooded White non-Koranimal girls and women, especially those of childbearing age, on a Biblical scale, by Moslem males haven’t jolted the First World’s and Second World’s non-Mohammedan men out of their stupor vis-a-vis the existential threat of Islam and Moslems, nothing ever will.
I reckon the vast majority of fertile pure-blooded European non-Koranimal girls and women have been raped and/or impregnated by Mad Mo’s avid followers!
gravenimage says
Muslims have not been able to rape and impregnate *most* European women and girls–yet–but is is not through want of trying.
OLD GUY says
The sign on the right says it all. And the migration invasion of muslim/islamic young men is part of the plan.
End PC says
Right. But Islam is easily recognized as extremely malevolent both by its unholy texts & its extremely violent history of trying to destroy Western Civilization. It was the duty of our political leaders, even now, to see this and act accordingly, but we have been betrayed & we have so many political cowards & traitors.
Need SCOTUS somehow to recognize that Islam is not a religion, or at least not to be protected as such by our 1st Amendment just because it calls itself a “religion”. Our Constitution must not illogically be protecting its determined assassin that opposes free speech and any other “religion”.
While we cannot outlaw a belief we don’t have to give tax free status to its mosques or institutions aimed at destroying ours. We must outlaw clearly enemy institutions.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Precisely!
While Daniel didn’t say so in so many words, I will: the problem w/ recognizing islam as a religion under the First Amendment is that there won’t remain a First Amendment if islam was allowed to achieve all its goals under the First Amendment
Wellington says
Disagree, Infidel. Here’s why in a nutshell: the key distinction between belief and action. Let me explain.
If a pervert believes it is OK to have sex with children he has the right to express that belief under the First Amendment but he does not have the right to act upon that belief. If a Satanist believes that a bloody human sacrifice should occur once a year as part of his warped religion, he has the right to have that belief, express that belief, but he does not have the right to act upon that belief. And the same with Muslims.
Mo’s deluded followers have the right to believe that Sharia should eventually replace the Constitution as the law of the land, but they don’t have the right to act upon that belief. Under the First Amendment, a Muslim can openly believe that leaving Islam should require death, that a woman’s testimony in a court of law should only equal half that of a man’s, that open criticism of Mohammed should result in severe penalties if not death, that a disobedient wife can be beaten, etc. but such a person does not have the right to act upon these heinous and stupid beliefs.
If only, yes IF ONLY, Muslims were extended the RIGHT to believe what they do but were on full notice, and backed up by very specific American statutory law, that they in many areas were not free to act upon those beliefs, then they could keep believing in their effing religion all the while understanding that if they acted upon it often times (e.g., killing an apostate), they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Belief v. action. This is of paramount importance but it will entail what I have for many years considered a sine qua non, i.e., Islam, like other terrible belief systems such as Marxism and Nazism, must be seen as iniquitous, for losers, for parasites, for ignorant and pathetic human beings. The First Amendment protections can be extended to Islam but only if what I have already stated is implemented. Besides, can you imagine all the faux martyrdom that would result from Islam being denied religious status? Far more trouble than it’s worth I would argue. Let Islam have First Amendment protection but only with the proviso I have already mentioned—and which proviso implemented could prevent further Muslim immigration to America just as is the case with Nazis, Marxists, Satanists and boy lovers.
maria v says
Well I beg to differ fellow Infidal. My explanation is simple; Why do you think they’ve Conquered 3/4 of the Planet aready?
THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANYONE’S LAWS EXCEPT THEIR OWN. That’s why they ‘Kill by the Sword.’ And the more ground they gain in the US, the more emboldened they become and begin their TERROR. That is unless, Americans will Finally fight back like the Spaniards did in the days of the CRUSADES
somehistory says
Very well explained, Wellington. Thoughts and actions are not the same; unless one acts on his thoughts, there are no laws to apply..
Many mafia members have been incarcerated because they broke the laws. But the mafia still exists in the U.S. Just as the AB have members in prison due to their actions, but the AB still exists.
The authorities should watch muzzlims closely, because their thoughts will lead to actions.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Wellington. We need to vigorously prosecute the many actions of Islam which violate our civiized laws.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Wellington
You may understand the difference b/w having a belief vs acting on the said belief. Key question here: do muslims understand the distinction as well as you do?
Wellington says
Make the bastards understand, Infidel. Make them by prosecuting them to the full extent of the law. Frankly, the weakest point in all this for America are not the Buttlims but all those foolish non-Muslims who continue to refuse to see how inimical to America many Muslim beliefs are.
Peter Burrows says
Verse 9:60 lists the eight uses of zakat, one of which is “expenditures in the way of Allah,” Sayyid Mawdudi explains in his tafsir “Towards Understanding the Quran, Vol. III, that the “view of the great majority of past scholars,” is “that ‘in the way of Allah’ stands for ‘jihad in the way of Allah’ ” He goes on to state that Jihad is an “all embracing concept — supported by Zakah funds whether Islam is in its early stages of propagating its message — or in its later stages when the struggle assumes a combative dimension.”
Follow the money.If Zakat funds are used to promote violence, terrorism, insurrection, etc., that constitutes action, does it not?
Tony says
Greenfield, please see “A Civilizational Reckoning” by Elaine Ellinger where the State does not fund organizations that are against the USA Constitution. The State sets the minimum standard of qualifications, including Equality under the law and the USA Bill of Rights etc. , for State privileges – Tax Exemption, Charitable Status, Public Funding, School Funding, etc. This can be a viable path to pursue.
gravenimage says
+1
࿗Infidel࿘ says
If you are recommending reading material to Mr Greenfield, may I also suggest our own Rebecca Bynum’s book “Allah is dead: why Islam is not a religion”
maria v says
So why is it okay for Muslimes to pray in Public and push their Political Ideology (aka: religion) and BAN Christians from silently praying in front of abortion clinics or displaying their Christian faith? In NY these Rug worshippers are in full display in public yet, IF a Christian is displaying a large cross/crucifix, the Muslimes get offended? I believe if this continues, there will be LAWSUITS Coming….
Please tell me IF I am wrong
gravenimage says
This *is* against the law, and should be prosecuted.
jewdog says
And they use democracy to destroy it.
Troybeam says
Democrats are a big problem as they would rather give up sovereignty of the United States to Islam, Liz Warren openly is supporting a Muslim running for office as many other elected officials likely will as well.
Islam using the 1st amendment because foolish democrats in 1965 changed the immigration law to allow Islam in the country after the 1952 law that passed in June of that year stated that Islam was a foreign government and NOT ALLOWED INTO AMERICA.
Put aside the 1st amendment for a moment, Islam can be removed from America for being a hostile entity that has stated Death to America by their leaders and organizations. They are a polygamy culture also not allowed by law and last because they threaten America from within Islam can be removed the problem as it is a foreign government which the Constitution clearly states it is the law and not sharia law the foreign law that is stealing our sovereignty.
The ignorance of people that refuse or unwilling to see the danger of Islam is hurting our nation and the elected officials that support Islam
gravenimage says
They are certainly trying to.
Maria V says
Democracy needs to be destroyed.
We are NOT a Democracy! We are a Constitutional REPUBLIC!
somehistory says
No need to shout.
maria v says
who’s shouting? I use the explanation point to ‘make my point..’
somehistory says
Using all caps to write a word on the Internet is *shouting.* Unless it’s something such as the FBI, RICO, ICE, etc. it’s considered to be a shout.
And I was not meaning the *exclamation* point.
maria v says
Gosh, I didn’t realize that some men here are so sensitive that even a capital letter/letters triggers them…
somehistory says
maria v, you write like a leftist….writing in all caps is rude. Guess you like to be.
I’m not “sensitive” to your writing, I was being *kind* by letting you know how to be polite.
I see it didn’t work.
maria v says
Sticks and Stones may hurt my bones but words will never hurt me…
gravenimage says
Maria, ALL CAPS and the exclamation point *are* shouting in text.
And giving you a head’s up that your use of all caps is inappropriate here is *not* the same as physical violence–just absurd.
Wellington says
Maria V: We are both. We are a democratic republic. In fact, with over 80,000 governmental units—states, counties, cities, boroughs, townships, etc. with their own government, it is quite arguable that America is the most democratic nation on the planet. In a state like New Hampshire, the legislature of many towns is actually the entire citizen body; in brief a pure democracy like ancient Athens rather than a representative democracy (but which is still a democracy).
I remain amazed at how many people still think that America is only a republic but not a democracy. It is both.
maria v says
To Wellington:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZOtEbwwfOM
somehistory says
Wellington you have explained it before. some are new to reading and perhaps listening.
maria v says
Wellington;
I already posted my comment. Did you not see it? I can send it again, let me know…
Wellington says
Your comment, Maria V, I did get and it’s absurd respecting what this person averred within the first few seconds, let alone all the other rot he spewed thereafter.
He stated that democracy means universal equality. No it does not. In ancient Athens, which actually invented democracy, there was no universal equality. Only male citizens could engage in the democracy that ancient Athens developed. So, right up front this person demonstrated his ignorance of what constitutes democracy.
But here is a larger challenge for you, to wit, don’t provide me some damn doofus exhibiting his ignorance on yet another god-forsaken You Tube channel. Like me, argue your own position, independent of everyone else. What? You’re not capable of this? How pathetic if so.
I provided you no damn You Tube video to prove my point. I proffered real arguments, such as my mentioning of the some 80,000 governmental units in America, even including evidence of not representative democracy but of pure democracy a la ancient Athens in New Hampshire, and all you could do is provide me a spurious video? This is the best you can do? If so, give up the ghost.
maria v says
In ancient Athens which actually invented democracy, there WAS NO universal equality. CORRECT so that is exactly what this gentleman was saying and I too am agreeing with. He also stated that Democracy has been hijacked for a long time now. This is another reason for your anger. Instead of saying; ‘okay I see now,’ you just HATE that you are wrong. And yes, I will use Caps to make a point that you don’t get it.
The problem is you cannot see beyond your Anger when you are challenged. That’s okay angry man, ‘you’ve made my day’ and no need to respond.’
Wellington says
Methinks, somehistory, Maria V has a lot to learn, including how to argue. Frankly, I have become so very tired of ignorance which is easily correctible but again and again which ignorance is not corrected.
In any case, America is both a republic and a democracy, though largely (although not exclusively) a representative democracy. My God, what will it take here?
Wellington says
Anger, Maria V? This is what I am suffering from? Really? Ah, if only I did not have anger. Oh the humanity!
Why not address what I have already noted and that is that America has over 80,000 governmental units and, a la Paul Johnson in Modern Times, this is indicative of the most democratic nation on Earth? And what about my mention of pure democracy in a state like New Hampshire? Didn’t address this either, did you?
Or is all this too difficult for you, too much information and all that, and upsetting your erroneous assumption that America is not a democracy? BTW, and with specific reference to the House of Representatives, a la the Connecticut Plan at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as opposed to the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, how is this not representative of representational democracy at its best? Yeah, explain this one or are you going to just provide me another YouTube video?
somehistory says
Wellington, I am of the opinion that every person has more things which can be learned, and if they wish to learn them, ways are available. But each one must want to learn what they do not know.
Intentional stupidity, continued ignorance, are tiring, especially when the Truth means so much.
gravenimage says
Maria, American law is Wellington’s professional field. He knows whereof he speaks.
More than one threat says
The debate between the legal permissiblity of belief (protected under the US First Amendment) and illegal action based upon that belief (not protected under the First Amendment), is an interesting one.
Wellington notes above that if a pervert believes it is OK to have sex with children he has the right to express that belief under the First Amendment but he does not have the right to act upon that belief.
Surely there are precursor actions that can be identified and legally prosecuted.
For example, if someone in the USA professes a belief in paedophilia, they can’t be arrested under the 1st Amendment. However, if they commit an act of paedophilia, they can be arrested.
But if they are in possession of child abuse publications or paraphernalia, surely they have committed acts for which they can be prosecuted, even though they may not have actually ultimately undertaken an act of paedophilia.
Islam might able to be targeted in the same way.
Accept that the belief can’t be targeted under the US First Amendment, but target the precursor acts.
It may not be possible to prosecute someone for believing in the violent verses in the Qur’an or Hadiths; however, it may be possible to convict someone for a precursor act based on that belief, such as the act of providing financial or materiel support to a proscribed terrorist group who has committed violent acts, even though the individual themselves has not personally committed a violent act.
For example, the USA designated Hamas to be a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) on October 8, 1997.
In accordance with the First Amendment, someone in the US is permitted to believe in the cause professed by Hamas. However, surely anyone in the USA who provides Hamas a precursor act of support is liable for prosecution, even though they personally may not have committed any violent act.
Maybe the focus should be on enabling precursor acts, rather than the ultimate acts.
somehistory says
There are laws against child porn. Anyone possessing, making, selling or sharing such can be prosecuted under those laws that prohibit it.
Members of the “holy land foundation” were arrested, charged, found guilty and incarcerated because they were sending money to hamas. cair was about to face the same, but bo squashed that and they remain “unindicted co-conspirators in that funding of hamas.
cair members should be indicted, tried and put away. They are receiving funding from several foreign muzzlim nations and they need to be investigated as to how the money is used.
More than one threat says
What if the “Holy Land Foundation” had been providing “in kind” support for Hamas by advocating, campaigning or fund raising for the designated terrorist group, Hamas?
Because, depending what crosses a threshold of illegal actions, potentially a lot of pro-Palestinian groups (who are invariably Left Wing) could also be arrested.
somehistory says
They were actually funding the terror group. This was found out and they were prosecuted. cair was on the list, but before their case could go forward, bo stopped the investigation and trial.
cair probably is still funding hamas; they certainly praise it and many muzzlims in America have met with members.
More investigations need to be to find out who has a part in funding hamas; or even hezbollah, isis, al queda, al shabab, etc.
Susan says
I’m reading some very good ideas & strategies. However prosecuting Muslim for carrying out their heinous & horrific acts (all okay in Islam & Sharia Law) might not be what we’d like.
I’m seeing too many accounts of NO ACCOUNTABLITY by these barbarians. Some of their actions are already against the law, but no one is prosecuting them at all or judges are lenient & giving them a pass.
Think it’s a smart idea to prosecute the behavior, but if Dems take over there won’t be many arrests or prosecutions or convictions.
Example is Britain and those brutal rape gangs ~ the accounts there are stomach churning. Those poor young girls are ruined forever & their government has done worst than nothing…..they’ve given these thugs permission by ignoring the pleas of families affected. Horrific!
gravenimage says
If they are prosecuted this is *not* “not what we’d like”. With all respect, it is just what we need.
Timmy says
It is a classic Catch 22 situation. Either we “violate” the First Amendment and ban Islam, or we let Islam continue to spread and it will eventually eliminate the First Amendment altogether. Silly Americans think they can have their cake and eat it too.
somehistory says
No need to ‘ban islam.’ All that needs to happen is for crimes to be prosecuted when they happen. muzzlims commit a lot of crimes and get away with them because too many in authority are afraid of being called names. And now, muzzlims have gained a lot of political power they are using to gain more.
Americans are not, on the whole, “silly.” But we do expect to keep the freedoms God gave us.
gravenimage says
+1
Timmy says
A silly American can stand on the courthouse steps holding a copy of the Constitution with his pinky finger in the air proclaiming that he has so-called freedom of speech, and then when some Muslim physically kills him for saying something about Islam, the Muslim can be tried for murder, BUT THE SILLY AMERICAN IS STILL DEAD, rather like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, he has ceased to be!
And most Americans, especially seeing the trajectory of insane liberals and even many so-called “conservatives” supporting the spread of Islam in the West because of so-called “freedom of religion” they will just keep their stupid mouth shut about Islam, even among friends and family, even among fellow church members, because they are not willing to lose their life for such a losing cause.
Judges seeing this will rule in favor of Islam rather than have to live under 24/7 security for the rest of their life. Same for politicians, teachers, authors, cowardly Christian preachers even.
Lizabee says
The first mistake was not having a definition for “religion” in the 1st Amendment. Our Founding Fathers were only considering different sects of Chrstianity. They didn’t even consider Islam as a problem…we were separated by an ocean even though Europe was subjected to relentless Islamic invasions.
Early in the 19th century, America as a new nation had to deal with Islamic pirates attacking American ships in the Mediterranean. Brave Americans gave their lives fighting against Muslims way before the State of Israel was created or the Iranian revolution.
If our Founding Fathers knew then what we know now, Islam would be considered a fake “Religion.” Just prosecuting their various crimes won’t stop their demographic jihad and elections of Muslims to political authority. Eventually Islam takes over because of tolerance of the “religion” of Islam which is suicide.
It’s too late. Muslims are rich from oil money and can set up colonies anywhere. World domination is their “religious” duty.
skeptiker says
Den Islam muss man bekämpfen statt ihn hoffähig zu machen . Die Häßliche Fratze des Islam kann man täglich in allen Teilen der Welt begutachten. Wer solch eine mittelalterliche , gewalttätige und menschenverachtende Ideologie hofiert und unterstützt, der möchte im Westen die Moderne und den Geist der Aufklärung auslöschen.
All diesen ideologischen Rattenfängern kann nur mit Bildung und Aufklärung energisch entgegen getreten werden. Null Toleranz gegenüber Intoleranz. Wir lassen uns von solchem vorsintflutlichem Aberglauben weder unsere Freiheiten, die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau noch unsere Fähigkeit des kritischen Denkens nehmen.
More than one threat says
Translation
Islam must be fought instead of being made acceptable. The ugly face of Islam can be viewed daily in all parts of the world. Anyone who courts and supports such a medieval, violent and inhuman ideology wants to eradicate modernity and the spirit of enlightenment in the West.
All these ideological rat-catchers can only be vigorously opposed with education and enlightenment. Zero tolerance to intolerance. We do not let such antediluvian superstition deprive us of our freedoms, the equality of men and women, or our capacity for critical thinking.
Hilly says
Thank you for the translation.