Ahmed Mohamed: 'Clock boy' seeks $15m from city and school

[Jane]

How many of these purported "many, many" Muslim communities have formed volunteer Muslim military units who have vowed before Allah to crush and destroy ISIS and the Caliphate so that they can live in peace? I'm betting the number is exactly zero.

Why? ISIS and the caliphate currently do not present enough threat to these Muslim communities. Besides, why do they have to volunteer to be world police, when they probably are too preoccupied by their daily life?

[rainbow]

How many of these purported "many, many" Muslim communities have formed volunteer Muslim military units who have vowed before Allah to crush and destroy ISIS and the Caliphate so that they can live in peace? I'm betting the number is exactly zero.

Why? ISIS and the caliphate currently do not present enough threat to these Muslim communities. Besides, why do they have to volunteer to be world police, when they probably are too preoccupied by their daily life?

A Caliphate should have a Caliph. Who is the Caliph, and who elected her/him?

[surreptitious57]

Islam is incompatible with American values and law and Muslims should leave and go back to the Middle East where they belong and stay there

If an American wishes to convert to Islam should they be deported to the Middle East also? Should every mosque in America be shut down? Should
America cease diplomatic relations for ever with all Muslim countries? Should Americans be banned from travelling to any Muslim country? Should
schools be prohibited from teaching students about Islam? Should the Founding Fathers be disregarded? Should the First Amendment be scrapped?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Islam is incompatible with American values and law and Muslims should leave and go back to the Middle East where they belong and stay there

A fascist sentiment if there ever was one.

Or perhaps they should wear green triangles until they are sent to the "special" camps...

[Brian Peacock]

I don't know, Seth's general point might have some merit. Fundamental religion is incompatible with civilised values - fundamental Evangelical Christianity and Islam simply being a case in point - and perhaps it is time to round them all up for the benefit and security of the civilised majority.

Of course, what Seth actually means it 'your' religion is incompatible with 'our' religion, and therefore 'you' must pay the price for being on the wrong side. Very Tolerant eh?

[JimC]

I don't know, Seth's general point might have some merit. Fundamental religion is incompatible with civilised values - fundamental Evangelical Christianity and Islam simply being a case in point - and perhaps it is time to round them all up for the benefit and security of the civilised majority.

Of course, what Seth actually means it 'your' religion is incompatible with 'our' religion, and therefore 'you' must pay the price for being on the wrong side. Very Tolerant eh?

Well yes, but the critical point is that a majority of adherents to religions are not fundamentalist, and have no intention of impinging on the lives of others.

The ones that wish to cross that line need to be dealt with (by normal police procedures), and the moderates need to perhaps do more to assist the community to deal with their wayward brethren, but we will only cause more radicalisation if we discriminate unfairly against the law-abiding members of society, no matter what eccentric delusion about non-existent deities they may may be infected with...

[Brian Peacock]

I agree Jim. Seth's doubling down seems to see him justifying action (enforced expatriation) on the basis of religious membership alone, and not either by the kind of beliefs held (fundamental, moderate, mostly-meh, etc) or by action which has or might follows from a particular interpretation. The 'all you Muslims are the same' argument obviously places the moderate and mostly-meh Muslims in the same category as fundamentalists, and if we fall into identifying all Muslims as such then we'll only have ourselves to blame if moderate and mostly-meh Muslims start identifying with the Jihadists as the 'defenders' of their faith and religious freedom. Of course, this is exactly what Jihadists are hoping for.

[Svartalf]

If muslims were that anti American, why didn't sen McCarthy tackle them back when?

[mistermack]

Well yes, but the critical point is that a majority of adherents to religions are not fundamentalist, and have no intention of impinging on the lives of others.

The fact that lots of people don't adhere fully to islam, doesn't make Islam itself any less disgusting.
What if the Nazis hadn't been defeated? What if there were a couple of dozen Nazi countries around the world now, who punished and imprisoned Jews, with some countries still putting Jews to death?
Would we say that because there are plenty of nazis who don't advocate killing jews, that Nazism is not inherently bad, or not incompatible with the American way of life?

That's the situation today with Islam. There are plenty of Islamic countries which punish apostates, and some of them put them to death. I don't care if you are a Jew or an apostate. Punishing, or killing apostates is just as evil as punishing or killing Jews. We wouldn't call Nazism compatible with the US way of life, and neither is Islam.

To me, that's the very essence of the wickedness of Islam. You get no choice. If you are born to muslim parents, you are COMPELLED to be a muslim, under pain of death, or drastic punishment.
The fact that they let that slide, in the US, is only because they would end up in prison, if they didn't.
If they got a chance, they would enforce it.

Edit :
I should also add that "apostate" doesn't just mean someone who rejects Islam.
It also means someone who fundamentally rejects any PART of the Koran, or the Hadiths.

[JimC]

mm, I agree that Islam has a built-in potential to be dangerous, based on its holy writings, which can easily lend themselves to violent extremists. As you say, their attitude to back-sliders is rather chilling... Moderate muslims need to be even better at cherry picking than christians!

However, it still remains true that there are a very large number of nominal muslims, particularly in the west who simply want to keep their heads down and get on with life. If they find themselves being constantly vilified, and/or more directly oppressed by government action, they will inevitably slide towards the extremist side, which is what the good folk at ISIS certainly want...

[Seth]

How many of these purported "many, many" Muslim communities have formed volunteer Muslim military units who have vowed before Allah to crush and destroy ISIS and the Caliphate so that they can live in peace? I'm betting the number is exactly zero.

Why? ISIS and the caliphate currently do not present enough threat to these Muslim communities.

Exactly. They are not a threat to Muslim communities because they are Muslims. They are, however, a threat to every non-Muslim.

Besides, why do they have to volunteer to be world police, when they probably are too preoccupied by their daily life?

Because if they don't then we are justified in viewing them with suspicion and discriminating against them because they are effectively co-conspirators and accessories to Muslim violence. Unless those "peaceful" Muslims are willing to take a public oath before Allah that they repudiate jihad, sharia law, and all forms of Koran-approved violence and oppression, including oppression against their own community members, specifically including women, and they swear to obey all US laws over any Muslim law I see no reason to trust them or free them from liability for the evil and violent aspects of their chosen religion.

Were Christians committing such atrocities in the name of Christ, as an organized group, I would feel the same way about them.

If you're not willing to assimilate into the great melting pot of America and become an American who places American values of liberty and freedom for all above your own personal political or religious beliefs, not a hyphenated American who clings to another culture and it's mores and holds those above the traditional values of the United States, then you're not welcome here and your motives for coming here will always be suspect. If you're not willing to assimilate, then stay where you were born and raised because we don't want you here.

[Seth]

Islam is incompatible with American values and law and Muslims should leave and go back to the Middle East where they belong and stay there

If an American wishes to convert to Islam should they be deported to the Middle East also?

If they place Islam and sharia law above the laws, practices and customs of the United States and the rights of other individuals, then yes. Or they should be jailed for violating the rights of others and the law, which includes the seditious and treasonous act of conspiring to violently overthrow the government of the United States and replace it with sharia law and Islamic rule.

Should every mosque in America be shut down?

Just the ones that are preaching adherence to sharia law, sedition, treason, violence, oppression against women and others, superiority of Islam over secular government, jihad and non-assimilation.

Should America cease diplomatic relations for ever with all Muslim countries?

No.

Should Americans be banned from travelling to any Muslim country?

No. If some idiot wants to go to a Muslim country, let them. But if they get in trouble or can't come back, screw them, we won't rescue them.

Should schools be prohibited from teaching students about Islam?

Not so long as they teach the truth about Islam, which is that it is inherently, according to their own documents, a violent totalitarian religion that advocates enslaving and killing anyone who is not a Muslim. But whitewashed versions of Islam that conceal or evade those truths must be prohibited in all schools, including private schools authorized to take the place of mandatory public schooling. And yes, the same restriction applies to ALL education about religion.

The best practice is, of course, for public schools NOT to teach anything about religion whatsoever prior to high school, and then only as part of historical references not including any reference whatsoever to the tenets of ANY faith. It would be acceptable to point out, in a high school history class, that Islam arose in 822 in what is now Saudi Arabia, and other secular facts of history, but not anything about what Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists or anyone else) believe. Students who wish to learn about the tenets of any religious faith should do so on their own time and of their own volition.

Should the Founding Fathers be disregarded? Should the First Amendment be scrapped?

The Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution to be a suicide pact. They well understood the inherent dangers of protecting the free exercise of religion and they were perfectly aware of the existence of Muslims and the tenets and dangers of the Muslim faith to the Republic and they did not intend to bar Congress (or the states) from regulating the free exercise of religion consistent with the safety and continued existence of the Republic.

"Free exercise of religion" is not, as is always the case with all constitutional laws, something that cannot be reasonably regulated in the public interest. Congress has the authority to regulate the exercise of any right (yes, including the RKBA...which it does regulate stringently already) provided that it does so in compliance with the requirements of strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling need to regulate, that the regulation be the minimum degree of regulation necessary to achieve the legitimate governmental objective, and that the regulation actually achieve that legitimate governmental purpose. This is known as the "Lemon Test."

Just as human sacrifice is prohibited as a religious practice, human enslavement and murder as a religious practice is prohibited. Because Islam explicitly commands its members to enslave and kill non-Muslims it is perfectly within the power of government, and the First Amendment, to prohibit such activities. Indeed, if Congress deems it a compelling need to provide for the safety of the public, the practice of Islam itself can be prohibited as a clear and present danger to the Republic, just as being a Communist was a bar to being a government employee in the 50s and just as Mormon polygamy and child-marriage was made unlawful as a threat to social order and a violation of the rights of children.

Islam inherently oppresses women and makes chattels of them as well as their children who may be subjected to physical abuse or even murder by their male relatives, which is unacceptable and unlawful and therefore may be prohibited, as many countries are now doing, by, for example, banning the wearing of the burka or face coverings as a matter of public safety, and by prosecuting Islamic males who assault or illegally detain or harm their spouses or children.

The free exercise of religion clause NEVER authorizes any person (or group of persons) to directly impose their religion or beliefs upon any other adult without their consent. It is a voluntary, individual, personal right that does not grant any authority over other adults to compel actions or behaviors. Therefore, any religion that purports to exercise social, political or religious authority over any adult against their express consent and will, as Islam does, is not protected by the First Amendment at least to the extent that such practices and exercises violate the rights of others, and thus such practices may be regulated or banned entirely by law and be in harmony with the First Amendment.

Thus, a Muslim may practice Islam by observing and engaging in only such peaceable activities called for by the Koran that do not involve imposing any religious beliefs or practices on any other person. Other persons may, of course, exercise the same religious beliefs in a peaceable and individual manner together with others of similar faith and belief, and, with some restrictions, may consent to obey religious dictates that do not otherwise violate secular law or individual rights, but under no circumstances is any person or assembly of persons authorized to impose those beliefs and practices on anyone else.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Islam is incompatible with American values and law and Muslims should leave and go back to the Middle East where they belong and stay there

A fascist sentiment if there ever was one.

Not at all. Suggesting that those who disagree with American ideals and practices are incompatible with residency in the United States is not "fascist" it's simply stating a simple truth. To be an American one needs to be an American first and a member of an ethnic, political or religious group second.

Or perhaps they should wear green triangles until they are sent to the "special" camps...

No need, they already have customs that make it pretty easy to identify them. And the only "camp" they need to be sent to is their Islamic homeland in Saudi Arabia. Let their Muslim brothers and sisters deal with them.

With all the agitation for allowing mass Muslim immigration into Europe and elsewhere, guess how many Muslim refugees Saudi Arabia has agreed to accept?

Zero.

And what is their excuse? Because they think it might "destabilize" their nation.

I say we don't give them a choice, we just load Muslims up in military aircraft and dump them at Saudi airports, all 5 million or more of them.

[JimC]

The key points of your argument, Seth, seem to be that the government has the power to act against people who break the law, for religious or non-religious reasons...

"Killing of non-muslims", "enslavement" etc. can be dealt with by perfectly normal police powers. I'm perfectly happy to add preaching jihad etc. by fundamentalist imams and harbouring such characters to the list, and even that specific mosques which have countenanced such preachings be shut down.

Beyond that, however, general discriminatory action against people who have broken no law, uttered no support for muslim extremism and are simply getting on with their lives would be against the spirit of your constitution, and a very nasty step towards a fascist regime, as well as playing into the hands of ISIS in terms of radicalising those you oppress...

[Seth]

I don't know, Seth's general point might have some merit. Fundamental religion is incompatible with civilised values - fundamental Evangelical Christianity and Islam simply being a case in point - and perhaps it is time to round them all up for the benefit and security of the civilised majority.

Of course, what Seth actually means it 'your' religion is incompatible with 'our' religion, and therefore 'you' must pay the price for being on the wrong side. Very Tolerant eh?

Not at all. Were Christians or Buddhists or Hindus or any other religious group in the US advocating and supporting treason, sedition, murder or enslavement then they should be just as subject to sanctions as Muslims.

I've not seen any organized action by Christians to violently overthrow the US government, nor have I seen any organized attempts by Christians to randomly kill non-Christians in large numbers. When and if I do, I'll be just as opposed to them as I am Islam.

Tolerism™ only tolerates the peaceable exercise of religion. It is in fact highly intolerant of non-peaceable exercises of religion that seek to impose any religious beliefs on others by force, and Tolerists™ are fully empowered and encouraged to use all necessary means to defend everyone against such violence.