Yes, tolerating the intolerant always results in a very appalling, hopeless lesson.
4 Likes
I obviously meant a definition in US law. The one you have usefully found would do.
I think trying to persuade people to act in concert to commit murder is a crime. Someone did that on this site and I consulted a lawyer before countering the personās suggestion and asking him politely to leave the site.
4 Likes
There is a fine line, indeed, but as long as it theoretical, there is little they can fuss about. But Hard things must be spoken of, and it often takes Hard speech TO discuss those things. Although I am certain that they are already planning to find a way to stop even that, but hopefully the 1st Amendment has not weakened to that extent. YET. We all know they would abolish it outright if they could. Have little fear, tho, if it ever comes to such things, I doubt seriously we will be worrying about 2 Things,for a Certainty - Chatting HERE, 1#, and 2#, Caring even the LEAST Bit if ANYTHING We do is āillegalā, at such a point in time.
Just continue to keep your hopes it never does get to such points. But even 10 years ago I would have Lolād at even entertaining such a Future, outside of some Fantasy Wargame Sim. Smh. Sad Times, Indeed.
2 Likes
But the Framers did indeed know of Islamās murdering tendency and desire for a Caliphate that ever increases, as they were attacking shipping that ventured near their territory. Thomas Jefferson was very concerned about what we now call Islamists and their notion that the Koran bade them slaughter the infidel. That is why he had a Koran to study. The Barbary Pirate War was based on economics even though Jefferson knew well the desires of Muslims, justified by their religion.
I agree with you that criminal activity is criminal activity, whether based upon religion or not. Attempting to bring a foreign nation to submission is war upon that nation, not bothersome missionaries seeking to convert individuals.
And, donāt forget that the First Amendment is more than just a nix on state religion, it is the right to petition the government over grievances, to assemble and to speak/write. I, for one, do not want to alter the Constitutionās Bill of Rights, the original ten, that is. Plain speech for plain people that says exactly what it means in the way that the government cannot mess with these rights of its citizens.
5 Likes
You are right, Jeanne. I had forgotten the Barbary Pirates for the moment.
4 Likes
I did too, and Iām frankly embarrassed I did. I of all people should have remembered that right off the top. Sigh. Such are brain injuries, also ever fickle and changing, lolā¦ 
3 Likes
What kind of brain injury did you get?
1 Like
Thatās interesting, I found an article by Christopher Hitchens which says that Jefferson did in fact think about other religions:
Quote:
This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginiaās representatives wanted the law āto comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.ā
Iāve corrected my above comments accordingly.
4 Likes
See also my link to a Christopher Hitchens article in my reply to Jeanne (who is right that Jefferson did contemplate protecting other religions including Islam, Iāve corrected my comments). I found the article a fascinating read and very relevant to this debate.
4 Likes
Had a Blood pressure issue, and took a blackout Fall from standing.Caused a severe hematoma and a bleed, both. Luckily my Stepson was with me and didnāt freak out too much, lol, and called his Mom, who is still working as an ER Nurse, told her what happened,and they called 911. It was SO bad, I started seizing off n on in the boxtruck, and they were originally going to take me to our local VA Center, but the Docs on the fone with the Medics had them reroute me to MCV, here, and I spent a month in the NeuroICU. I was out for most of that, but finally came too in the ER while they were evaluating me, before I went to Surgery and then ICU. I talked to the attending ER Doc, told him my background,and asked him to give me the straight 411, and he did. He told me I had to have a drain put in,and they of course were doing all they could, but it was still 50/50. IF I made it thru the 1st 24 hrs, he said , prognosis was good, but no telling what, if any, perm. damage there would be, but of course, draining the bleed was 1st Order (all of that stuff I knew, of course, having had MANY such patients myself)So, he advised, if I had any business that needed done, to make arrangements NOW,before I went to surgery, but Iām pretty sorted out, so I just got Ali a POA to handle any of my āthingsā if I didnāt come back out. It was an interesting Ride, Hahaha. I
am extremely Lucky for that sort of injury. Mostly fairly minor short term memory stuff, thats pretty much it. Canāt really complain much about that, considering the alternatives,most of which are far worse than Death, to me, anyway, Hahahahaā¦
4 Likes
Wow. That was close. Glad you made it!
4 Likes
Well, yes, all religions and lack of one fall under the First Amendment, but Jefferson was not at all unaware of the dangers of radical Islam, nor of any radical and militant religions. That is where the criminal activity factor comes in. You can be any religion or an atheist, but obey the laws of the US or be arrested, charge, tried and punished.
5 Likes
The question here is when does mere speech cross the line into criminality. Not all speech is protected, that much is clear, in my understanding the line was drawn with the requirement that an incitement had to be āimminentā in this ruling:
There are many incitements in religious texts, including Christianity, but religious texts could never be deemed to be āimminentā incitement I think.
The First Amendment is going to come under increasing pressure though I think with all the left wing ideological trends, as we see in this section:
3 Likes
Nonetheless, Islam is a seditious movement.
2 Likes
This is a very relevant case. The argument was made here that Islam is not a religion, presumably meaning that those who brought the legal action saw the same problem that I am seeing (the articleās author could be a Muslim by the wording I think):
āOpponents Of Tennessee Mosque Argue That Islam Isnāt A Religion But Rather A Seditious Political Movementā
4 Likes
WOW. Got to admit, Iām VERY surprised to see this legal action. Definitely going to be following this one closely, Thanks for finding and posting this. It could be very big,and Iām hoping it is taken and argued seriously, and not just tossed out.
Be VERY Interesting to watch, for sure.
1 Like
Well, I do hate to be juvenile, but I wanted to make sure I understood the term āsedition.ā
āconduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarchā
Let me remember now; āDeath to America, Death to Israelā, āUS you will pay Caliphate is on the way!ā Burning of American flags, bombings, threats of bombings and attempts to bomb, murderous rampages across Europe, invasion of foreign nations via illegal immigration, speech of intentions to threaten the US and other nations.
I suppose that technically all this isnāt sedition unless such speech and actions are not against ones own nation? Still, how many immigrant Islamists work hard to cause American or European Muslims to join them and how many do? And if it isnāt against their own nation, then is it war?
When a portion of a religion is militant and promotes sedition, and they are behaving that way because of their religion, what are we to assume about their religion?
Not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Southern Baptist are White Supremacists. Islamists are a global threat. White Supremacists, not so much. Which one should we spend time upon in defense of Western Civilization and plain human decency?
It seems to me that Islam is a militant and seditious religion. Personally, I feel that the onus is upon the individual Muslim to prove to their community that he or she is not. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duckā¦ Thatās seems insensitive, until you realize that many radicals donāt announce their radical intentions. We know cells are here. We know that people from more than 100 countries are coming across our Southern border. We know that those that have committed seditious acts and speech live among us and work against our government. Why shouldnāt we be very, very careful and suspicious and use whatever legal means there is to protect our communities?
I hate the way I am thinking, but what does foolish ignorance and PC thinking gain?
If my thoughts are not legal or highbrow enough, they are at least honest and reflect those of regular folk trying to navigate all the machinations of enemies, both foriegn and domestic.
5 Likes
In my mail today:
3 Likes
Islam is an ideology - primitive, cruel, murderous, barbaric.
And it has declared war on the whole of the non-Islamic world.
And many Muslims, in the name of Islam, have committed atrocities and continue to do so.
It is enough that we know all that. Should be enough to induce us to disparage it, argue against it, mock it, and counter-terrify its jihadis in every way we possibly can.
4 Likes
It should be enough for our government to ban them from entering the country entirely.
4 Likes