1 of 2
1
Let's Ban Islam
Posted: 05 May 2006 09:39 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1076
Joined  2005-12-22

Anybody up for a constitutional amendment in the United States to that effect?

Maybe not an outright ban—but exclude Islam from protection under any clause of the 1st amendment or any other part of the constitution?

The ensuing national debate would revolve around contents of the Koran (murderous beyond repair), secularism, freedom of conscience, etc.  No holds barred debate on the legitimate status of the most inhuman belief system on the planet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1835
Joined  2006-03-26

This would set a dangerous precedent. The ones shouting the most for this sort of ban would of course be the christian extremists—-the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. This would in turn push us toward a christian theocracy.

I would much rather live among the harmless muslims here then take a chance on banning a particular religion. Besides, it’s unconstitutional.

 Signature 

Bill Maher’s New Rule About Religious Tests for Office

Sam explains the difference between the belief in Elvis and belief in Jesus

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  28
Joined  2006-05-05

Personally, I beleive if one reads the book, it’s entertaining enough to make you say “Why?”

If the United States passes any sort of anti-Islam act, the retaliation would be more than Apocolyptic. Why stir up violence? Don’t forget now, I dislike blood….

To single out a race or religion is similiar to what Hitler did, we would be no better than a grand murderer. Please, consider this peice of advice: Never poke the sleeping bear. Judah did, he recently had his arm re-attatched.

Jesus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19

I agree with rab and, er, ah, eh…Jesus. (is that pronounced GEE-ZUH-US or Hey-Seus?)

Middle eastern Muslems already seem to believe that we are attacking them because of their faith. Baning Islam would just confirm their point of view. I would think that this would provide an incentive for even moderate muslims to take up arms against their (percieved) oppressors.

Also, as pointed out, this would perch us upon the most slippery of slopes. If we are to ban Islam because it is a “dangerous” ideology, couldn’t we then ban others that we deem objectionable? A recent poll showed that atheist are the most distrusted group in America. Might not we (this time meaning my fellow atheist) be next? Perhaps to be followed by gays, evolutionist, and any other party not deemed to belong to the so-called “Moral Majority?”

What may be in order, although it could prove to be dangerous as well, is a “debunking” of Islams claims. There has been a slow erosion of the influence of the Catholic church due to the debunking of many of it’s claims. Could similar tatics be employed against Islam?

[ Edited: 06 May 2006 04:52 PM by ]
 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2006-05-02

[quote author=“rab”]This would set a dangerous precedent. The ones shouting the most for this sort of ban would of course be the christian extremists—-the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. This would in turn push us toward a christian theocracy.

I would much rather live among the harmless muslims here then take a chance on banning a particular religion. Besides, it’s unconstitutional.

i agree, there is already a paranoia amoung the religious that they are being persecuted (how dare anyone suggest that the invisible wizard be removed from the pledge of allegence or the ten amazing suggestions removed from court houses).  you would have every preacher pointing out the intollerance of atheists despite the fact that they don’t really care if islam is banned or not.  i’m sure if you asked any of them they would say that the diversity of religion is what makes america strong, yet they would not hesitate to suggest that if everyone was christian that it would be a better country.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1076
Joined  2005-12-22

I wouldn’t ban it outright—I would un-protect it constitutionally.  Islam is a violent, totalitarian ideology.  It’s stated goal, reiterated continuously throughout the Koran, is complete domination of the world.  Our notions of tolerance and religious pluralism are completely alien to and incompatible with Islam.

The Koran is a guidebook to world domination through brute force.  The Bible is not.  The Pali Canon is not.  Neither are the Vedas nor the Upanishads.  And obviously, humanist philosophical texts are not completely geared towards violent suppression of all opposing ideologies.

Islam itself should be formally recognized in the United States as being the ideology with which we are at war.  Imagine fighting World War II without the Allies making reference to fascism.  Imagine instead Churchill and Roosevelt lauding Nazism as a doctrine of peace which had been misinterpreted by a few zealots.

Spread of Islam in (currently) civilized societies is the biggest threat to our liberal values—freedom of speech, of conscience, human rights, etc.

[quote author=“Koran 8:12”]
I (Allah) shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels.  Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!

Please read the Koran—then you’ll see that the bulk of it is intolerance, slavishness and incitement to violence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  842
Joined  2006-02-19
[quote author=“mudfoot”]Islam itself should be formally recognized in the United States as being the ideology with which we are at war.  Imagine fighting World War II without the Allies making reference to fascism.  Imagine instead Churchill and Roosevelt lauding Nazism as a doctrine of peace which had been misinterpreted by a few zealots.

I have read the Quran. As has been pointed out, the Quran has nothing in it that corresponds to the golden rule, something which is a feature of every other faith. It is stridently xenophobic in it’s teachings. It turned my stomach more than any other religious text I’ve read.

Saying that, I don’t think compairing the Allied opposition to fascism and nazism is apt. Fascism and nazism were ideologies, not religions, and had few adherants outside of the axis nations. Islam, on the other hand, has worshipers all over the world (as we’re reminded, it’s the fastest growing religion in the world). Some of these worshipers belong to mostly peaceful sects (such as Sufism, which promotes a more mystical interpretation of the Quran). The trouble with imposing a “dhimmitude” on Islam is to risk adding more fuel to an already raging fire.

While some might see this as turnabout is fair play, seeing how dhimmitude was an established practice for years in Islamic countries, I fail to see what such an abridgement of rights would seek to accomplish. There are two outcomes that I can see here. One is where an abridgement of rights generates sympathy for muslems, possibly bringing more converts to their faith (one reason why Islam is growing so fast is that it appeals to the disenfranchised, who would sympathise with muslems even more if we were to disenfranchise the entire religion). The second, and most obvious, is that American muslems would begin to feel as though they were looked at as enemy combatants. This might cause some of them to become militant, seeing the fight of the insurgants or al Qaeda as theirs as well.

Of course some might compare what you’re proposing to the Japanese internment camps of WWII, and tell me that the Japanese in those camps didn’t become militant. While that may be true, and I don’t suggest that all muslems would become terrorist, I believe that there is a difference in both the situation (Japan was seen as an equal to the US. For those who are sympathetic to their plight, Iraqi and Afghanistani “freedom fighters” are seen as the David to the US’s Goliath) and in the mind set (Japan was seen as an agressive nation intent on empire building, and many Japanese Americans opposed what Hirohito was doing. Many muslems already see what we are doing in the middle east as a war on Islam itself. While no one thought that the US was out to commit genocide on the Japanese, many muslems think that we are out to erradicate Islam).

While I agree with Mr Harris’s postion on religion, I have to say that your idea doesn’t seem the right way to go about it. If anything, I think that placing a limit on their rights might do nothing but strenghten their resolve.

 Signature 

People have said that an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards would produce the works of Shakespeare, but the internet has shown this to be wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 May 2006 09:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1076
Joined  2005-12-22
[quote author=“Celsus”][quote author=“mudfoot”]Islam itself should be formally recognized in the United States as being the ideology with which we are at war.  Imagine fighting World War II without the Allies making reference to fascism.  Imagine instead Churchill and Roosevelt lauding Nazism as a doctrine of peace which had been misinterpreted by a few zealots.

I have read the Quran. As has been pointed out, the Quran has nothing in it that corresponds to the golden rule, something which is a feature of every other faith. It is stridently xenophobic in it’s teachings. It turned my stomach more than any other religious text I’ve read.

Good—this is a good starting point for discussion we’re having, and I think it should be national (and global) along the same terms.  Namely, Islam is disgusting.  Now, what to do about it?

Saying that, I don’t think compairing the Allied opposition to fascism and nazism is apt. Fascism and nazism were ideologies, not religions, and had few adherants outside of the axis nations. Islam, on the other hand, has worshipers all over the world (as we’re reminded, it’s the fastest growing religion in the world).

That would indicate to me that Islam is a bigger problem than Nazism—more people believe in it, it’s far older, so we have our work cut out for us.

Some of these worshipers belong to mostly peaceful sects (such as Sufism, which promotes a more mystical interpretation of the Quran).

The pacifist Sufis disavow Islam—the Koran and the other war manuals.  I would include in the constitutional amendment specific language about the Koran and its violence.  Apostate Sufis and Ba’hai would not fit in that category.

The trouble with imposing a “dhimmitude” on Islam is to risk adding more fuel to an already raging fire.
While some might see this as turnabout is fair play, seeing how dhimmitude was an established practice for years in Islamic countries, I fail to see what such an abridgement of rights would seek to accomplish.

Here is the type of things I think can be accomplished as a result of a constitutional amendment defining Islam as not sacrosanct under the first amendment.

1.  it would allow public school curriculums and other government institutions to teach about the harms of islam without running afoul of the establishment clause.  “Religion of Peace” is a complete lie, but our government is forbidden by our own laws to tell the truth about Islam.

2.  measures like the Patriot Act could be specifically tailored to only the necessary targets while protecting other sectors of the population from draconian intrusion.  Namely, Patriot Act should go after terrorists—not dope dealers or garden variety crooks.  But cops being as they are, the Patriot Act is an open door to abuse.  Namely, constitutionally removing protections from Islam allows policies to be created which can most effectively deal with the threat while not unduly harming freedoms for the rest of our population.

The government can’t legally make policies targetting the source of islamic terrorism—because it’s protected by the constitution.  Fortunately, we can change the constitution.

There are two outcomes that I can see here. One is where an abridgement of rights generates sympathy for muslems, possibly bringing more converts to their faith (one reason why Islam is growing so fast is that it appeals to the disenfranchised, who would sympathise with muslems even more if we were to disenfranchise the entire religion). The second, and most obvious, is that American muslems would begin to feel as though they were looked at as enemy combatants. This might cause some of them to become militant, seeing the fight of the insurgants or al Qaeda as theirs as well.

I think a very large proportion of muslims in the US already sympathize with the Palestinians and believe that suicide bombing is legitimate.  The “moderates” are upset that they’re not allowed to fund Hamas.  I don’t want them getting violent, either.  And I do expect violence from them as a result of perceived insults.  That’s the problem to begin with.

What’s a better solution?  I’m all ears.  Please don’t talk about “Religion of Peace” either.  We all know that’s not the case.

Of course some might compare what you’re proposing to the Japanese internment camps of WWII, and tell me that the Japanese in those camps didn’t become militant. While that may be true, and I don’t suggest that all muslems would become terrorist, I believe that there is a difference in both the situation (Japan was seen as an equal to the US. For those who are sympathetic to their plight, Iraqi and Afghanistani “freedom fighters” are seen as the David to the US’s Goliath) and in the mind set (Japan was seen as an agressive nation intent on empire building, and many Japanese Americans opposed what Hirohito was doing. Many muslems already see what we are doing in the middle east as a war on Islam itself. While no one thought that the US was out to commit genocide on the Japanese, many muslems think that we are out to erradicate Islam).

Some Afghani immigrants around the corner from me tell me they wouldn’t last 10 minutes in Kabul before those animals cut their heads off.  They are so thankful for being in the US, and they despise just about everybody they have met here from their homeland and the surrounding “stans” who try to keep to their old ways.

Islam is mob rule.  It enforces Omerta just like the mob.  “moderates” go along because they don’t want to be outcast—the sanctions are heavy, up to and including death.

While I agree with Mr Harris’s postion on religion, I have to say that your idea doesn’t seem the right way to go about it. If anything, I think that placing a limit on their rights might do nothing but strenghten their resolve.

I’m all ears for a better solution.  I’m not interested in limited rights for punitive reasons—only to allow our government to fulfill its role as protecting civil society and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.  As you agree, the Koran is unique among religious books as having little to no humanitarian impulse.  The only example of an Islamic country resembling civil society is Turkey.  And that only came about as a result of Ataturk’s suppression of overtly Islamic elements of Turkish society.  All other Islamic societies are economic basket cases, cruel, and culturally desolte.  The immigrant populations in Europe take to their old ways of child brides, and murder of locals who speak out against them.  I do not want that to happen in the United States.

How would you propose to stop it from happening here?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2006 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20

mudfoot writes:  “How would you propose to stop it from happening here?”

As a start, I would say, let’s stop aiding and abetting the enemy.

So far, our military strategists, if we have any, haven’t recognized the Koran as a call to arms for its adherents.  They make sure each Muslim POW has one, as though it was a Sunday School textbook. During WW II, can you imagine the German POW’s being given a copy of Hitler’s ‘Mien Kampf’?

Muslim countries have something we want; this affects everything.  All kinds of wierd, hanky-panky things are happening because of our dependence on their oil.

In the county where I live, the yahoos drive monster pickups and SUV’s.  These gas guzzling vehicles are decorated with flags and yellow ribbon ‘SUPPORT OUR TROOPS’ signs.  Probably a lot of the soldiers’ wives are driving gas guzzling vehicles.  Which troops are we supporting?

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2006 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“unsmoked”]
Which troops are we supporting?

Ouch. So true.

In a sense, I wish prices for gas had always been this high, since it would’ve influenced urban planning back in the fifties and sixties, back when they could’ve designed towns and mass transit more intelligently. As a kid, I was certain the whole country would look like Tomorrowland by the time I grew up—Peoplemovers, sky trams, subterranean trains. . . but turns out the planners had their heads in Fantasyland.

_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2006 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20

Mia - the Swedes have a new train that runs on biogas.  As this ‘silver bullet’ speeds across the green countryside the cows can all watch it with pride.  In Helsingborg,  buses run on biogas.(Time Magazine, April 3 - page47)

Safe, peppy, comfortable cars that get 75 mpg could easily be mass produced for less than $10,000.  The government could motivate people to make the switch by offering generous tax breaks.  Air quality would improve dramatically; city skies would turn blue; billions would be saved in health care; greenhouse gases would be reduced.

Q:  Why isn’t this one of the strategies for winning the war?

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2006 08:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

-

:shock: I had to look that up, unsmoked, had never heard of ‘biogas’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4373440.stm


So . . .what does the exhaust smell like, I wonder . . and is it a fair trade-off for those blue skies :??


_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2006 08:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20

Mia - clicking the above link, I was shocked to learn that the durn Swedes are running their train on cows.  I innocently thought it was running on methane made from cow pies and garbage.  HOWEVER, cheeky Brits aside, I think we can rest assured that methane burns oderless and clean - it’s not like the Silver Bullet is streaking across Scandinavia belching barbeque smoke.  (Here, on the commodities market, I think the gas companies would still be outbid by Purina.  Our San Francisco Zephyr would run on corn - clean, edible popcorn flying out the chimney).

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 May 2006 08:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2006-05-07

Islam will need to be recategorized and banned especially in the west. Here is why:
1. There has been no reformation in Islam. There will be no reformation within the forseeable future. 
2. It is the most sanctimonious, arrogant and hedonistic way of life that is currently being preached. The primary aim of all muslims is to convert others to their faith, this is taught to us in our societies from a very early age. If one converts another to Islam he is guaranteed the rewards of heaven.
3. It abhor’s free thought and expression. The effects of this can be seen by observing the decay that is the hallmark of the countries under the Islamic yoke. It is interesting to note that the Muslims are quite willing to use the freedom of expression and free speech that is found in the West to propogate their “faith” yet will not accept the same concepts when their religion is put under the microscope using the same principles. 
4. Islam is currently the only religion that is anathema to logic and reason, those traits that have brought us the wonders of the modern technological age.

If we are to succeed in moving ourselves forward into a brighter future Islam will need to be confronted right now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2006 01:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  310
Joined  2006-01-31

Anything to stop the ridiculosity velocity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2006 11:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-02-13

Obviously I’m posting as a “cheeky Brit” :wink: not an American but I thought I’d add my viewpoint anyway for what its worth. I think singling out Islam in the proposed way will only further radicalise muslims across the world.

I do believe that freedom of speech is not absolute, but the only speech I think should be banned is incitement to violence. So I’m all in favour of prosecuting the muslims who demonstrated a few months back here in London with signs saying things like “Massacre those who insult Islam”.

[quote author=“razusm”]Islam is currently the only religion that is anathema to logic and reason, those traits that have brought us the wonders of the modern technological age.

While Islamic states are currently technologically lagging behind, historically they were once the most advanced in the world.

Mudfoot, surely if you’re going to teach kids about the harm that Islam can do then they should also be taught about the harm other religions, including Christianity can do? For example, stating that using condoms is immoral while millions die from AIDS.

As to the Palestinians, while I disagree with the militants who kill civilians, I (an atheist) sympathize with the plight Palestinian people as a whole. IMAO what Israel is doing is merely fuelling militancy not solving the problem and one of the main causes of this are the Jewish fundamentalist settlers who believe it is their god-given right to settle in some areas, even though international law says such occupation is illegal. So shouldn’t you also teach kids about the harm that Judaism can do?

[quote author=“mudfoot”]All other Islamic societies are economic basket cases, cruel, and culturally desolte.

Last month I went to Tunisia on holiday and that’s a muslim country, yet it is not an economic basket case nor is it culturally desolate. As for cruel, it is a not a democracy but in my (admittedly limited) experience it certainly didn’t seem oppressive.

[quote author=“mudfoot”]The immigrant populations in Europe take to their old ways of child brides, and murder of locals who speak out against them.

Maybe there are a few cases of this in Eastern Europe? Can you supply examples? But to talk about “the immigrant populations in Europe” as a whole like this is ridiculously OTT.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed