I apologize for my delay in reply to the questions of your last post:

”Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so, for everyone? or just for Muslims?”

The United States Constitution begins with the its important preamble:

”We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

After many months of debate and revision our forefathers reached a common understanding and agreement on how they were going to govern themselves with mutual respect around a common set of goals. All citizens of the United States, either by birth or via a naturalization citizenship oath, are bound to support the same Constitution.

In contrast, the basic tenets of Islam are hostile to the citizenship rights provided by our Constitution. The Islamic concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are important factors in this hostility. Islam divides the world into two spheres. Dar al-Islam is an abode, country, territory, or land where Islamic sovereignty prevails. Dar al-Harb is called the “abode of war” and it denotes any territory that is NOT governed by the assembly of Islam. There is no separation of church and state in Muslim lands. Where Islam prevails as a religion, it also governs by Islamic standards and destroys all competition. Muslims are expected to bring Allah’s word and Allah’s will to all of humanity, by force if necessary. Freedom of speech, as we know it, is not allowed in Muslim lands, neither is freedom of religion.

A strict, or “good and faithful” Muslim cannot sincerely support a constitution such as ours, which allows infidels to live and govern in defiance to Islamic law. They can however, profess support for our Constitution while engaging in “al-Taqiyya.”

“Al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “dissimulation.”

While Muslim “scholars” of both Shia and Sunni persuasions differ as to the application of this concept among fellow Muslims, the definition is of such a general nature that its application in relations with infidels allows the justification of almost any lie or deception imaginable. Such Muslims will actively use our freedoms with the ultimate goal of destroying them.

However, I am sure that there are Muslims in America who do sincerely support our Constitution and its freedoms for all of our citizens. They would be among those who would fall into the category of “We the people…” as stated in the preamble. They are our brother and sister citizens who are of like-mind with the ideals of our Constitution. Yet, they would seem to be, by most definitions, not very good Muslims, since they have been “corrupted” by western concepts foreign to the very nature of Islam.

So, with all of these things in mind, I believe that every American Muslim has a dangerous internal conflict of allegiance. In March of 2003, U.S. Army Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar tossed three grenades into the tents of fellow 101’st Airborne soldiers in Kuwait. He killed two Americans and injured 15 others because, when his allegiance was tested, his oath to the U.S. Constitution and his fellow soldiers meant nothing to him, compared to his loyalty to Islam. ALL American Muslims face the same internal conflict. Where does their loyalty lie? And can we expect a truthful answer?

JJF, the answers to these questions will determine the answers to your questions.

”Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so, for everyone? or just for Muslims?”

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Pardon my delay in addressing your question at the end of your post. I will get to it soon.

Thanks,
Mike

Report comment to moderator

No I wouldn’t. Actively and deliberately inciting violent action is a very different thing than just ranting about your complaints.

Report comment to moderator

I appreciated your response, and feel like we’re getting to the heart of the issue here:

The “Islamic Saudi Academy” (K-12) in Fairfax County, VA has been accused of preaching hatred and violence against Jews and Christians based on the contents of the Saudi supplied textbooks that they use. Of course, they deny it. Such allegations would be almost impossible to prove unless a government monitor were in attendance at all times in all classes. Yet, they openly teach the Quran where hatred and violence against Jews and Christians is also implicitly taught—freedom of religion, you know. It is not surprising then that one of their class valedictorians, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, after graduation joined al Qaeda and was later convicted of several serious offenses including planning to assassinate President Bush. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Is all of this enough evidence to shut the school down? I think so, but most liberals would balk at the idea. Most liberals, from what I have seen, would also balk at the idea of monitoring the activities and preaching that occur in mosques all across America. In the liberal view, It’s OK to aggressively preach active hatred of America, Jews, and Christians, but it’s not OK to even monitor that speech to determine when it easily and quickly changes into sedition.

You raise a couple central issues worth discussing:

(1) the practicality of surveilling schools suspected of inciting violence
(2) the morality of surveilling such schools
(3) whether preaching the Quran (i.e., being Muslim) automatically makes one a terrorism suspect

To (1) and (2), this is exactly what our court system is in place for. This issue, as you say, is very complex. The best way to deal with complex issues is on a decentralized, case by case basis. If there is evidence sufficient to convince a judge of the need for a warrant, then put wiretaps in every room, cameras in every vent, seize records, question teachers, whatever. I (not quite a liberal, but a libertarian, which is close enough for most conservatives) have no problem with that. If you have not obtained that warrant, then the Constitution does not allow you to surveille them. Even if you believe the President needs expedited powers elsewhere so he can listen in to any conversation on a moment’s notice, surely the threat of a Muslim school teacher indoctrinating students is not so immediate that the normal methods of justice would not work.

As for (3), you again seem to be suggesting (but not coming out and directly saying) that we need special rules for Muslims. I’d like to ask you again:

Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so, for everyone? or just for Muslims?

Report comment to moderator

Fair enough, but he wasn’t a criminal when was just ranting about how much he hated the government. We don’t lock people for their beliefs or opinions.

You seem to be advocating locking up Muslims who rant about how much they hate America, even when they’ve made no move to actually do anything about it. The fact that they’re Muslim seems to be enough for you, and I don’t think that’s a very American attitude.

Report comment to moderator

Steve’s point in #55, which I quoted directly, was that McVeigh did not commit a crime until he had actually harmed someone (i.e., detonated the bomb). He apparently does not consider the intent and planning of the attack a crime.

You and I are in agreement on that point, but Steve is not. You say that ”Inciting people to violence or the overthrow of the government is a crime.” That is sedition, and you and I are also in agreement on that point. Considering Steve’s aforementioned view, I doubt that he is in agreement on sedition either. So, on these points I find his position untenable, if not downright foolish.

You further say, ”If the government could prove that a Muslim madras was planning or inciting people to violence, I don’t think any liberal in America would have a problem with imprisoning the leaders after convicting them under due process of the law.” I don’t think you are correct, since liberal Steve, from what he has said here, would most likely object.

The “Islamic Saudi Academy” (K-12) in Fairfax County, VA has been accused of preaching hatred and violence against Jews and Christians based on the contents of the Saudi supplied textbooks that they use. Of course, they deny it. Such allegations would be almost impossible to prove unless a government monitor were in attendance at all times in all classes. Yet, they openly teach the Quran where hatred and violence against Jews and Christians is also implicitly taught—freedom of religion, you know. It is not surprising then that one of their class valedictorians, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, after graduation joined al Qaeda and was later convicted of several serious offenses including planning to assassinate President Bush. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Is all of this enough evidence to shut the school down? I think so, but most liberals would balk at the idea. Most liberals, from what I have seen, would also balk at the idea of monitoring the activities and preaching that occur in mosques all across America. In the liberal view, It’s OK to aggressively preach active hatred of America, Jews, and Christians, but it’s not OK to even monitor that speech to determine when it easily and quickly changes into sedition.

You are correct that I raise a lot of issues and provide few answers. The answers are not easy to come by, but discussion is certainly needed to find them. From what I have seen most liberals don’t even want to seriously consider the issues. They are more interested in just shutting off the debate with their standard knee-jerk accusations of unconstitutionality (see #’s 53, 54, & 55).

Report comment to moderator

The spellchecker that you gave me offered me the word and I ate.

Report comment to moderator

Post #56 seems to raise a lot of issues and pose a lot of leading questions, but you don’t quite deliver answers. It seems as though your point is, broadly and unsettlingly, that the current situation is so complex that the old ways of understanding the Constitution may no longer apply. Can we get to some specifics?

Do you believe we must change the way first amendment rights have historically been interpreted? If so: For everyone, or just for Muslims?

You say, “…but [McVeigh] didn’t become a criminal until he harmed others based on that hatred.” Unless I am mistaken, I think you are a little more intelligent than that foolish statement implies. McVeigh became a criminal when he planned and purposed to carry out his act, NOT merely after he had done it. We do not have to wait for someone to kill thousands before we stop them, as you seem to think.

I believe Steve G’s point (and the salient point, at any rate) is that McVeigh did not become a criminal until he committed a crime. Hating America is not a crime. Planning a terrorist attack is a crime. The same rule applies for Muslim groups in the United States. Hating America and preaching about her evils is not a crime. Inciting people to violence or the overthrow of the government is a crime.

If the government could prove that a Muslim madras was planning or inciting people to violence, I don’t think any liberal in America would have a problem with imprisoning the leaders after convicting them under due process of the law. But until they have committed such a crime, they get first amendment rights just like the rest of us, including the right to advertise for their church or to preach hatred of America.

Report comment to moderator

You have ignored and failed to address the details of my argument. This is a complex situation which demands careful thought and careful actions if both the security of our country and the freedoms of our citizens are to exist together in a proper balance.

We are involved in a complex and worldwide war with an enemy who is deceptive and difficult to find. Domestically we are faced with a situation comparable to that faced by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan: a cowardly enemy who hides behind and endangers good people in order to pursue his own evil. How do we distinguish between the good and the bad? This is vital for our own security. There is also the factor of a movement that is both religious and political and of its practitioners dishonestly using the one to shield the other. There is the additional consideration that none of our freedoms are absolute. Each one of them has its limits and finding those limits under the changing circumstances of peace and war is what this debate is all about. I raised all of these issues in posts #45 & 51.

Yet, instead of considering these things, you have ignored them and purposely misstated my position to one of a simplistic solution of imprisoning people for what they believe. That is not at all what I advocate.

Your view of the Timothy McVeigh case is equally incorrect. You say, “…but he didn’t become a criminal until he harmed others based on that hatred.” Unless I am mistaken, I think you are a little more intelligent than that foolish statement implies. McVeigh became a criminal when he planned and purposed to carry out his act, NOT merely after he had done it. We do not have to wait for someone to kill thousands before we stop them, as you seem to think.

As I said before, the stupidity of that approach borders on the moronic. Come on Steve, rise a little above that and address some of the issues I have raised here.

Report comment to moderator