A statement from the Copt at the center of the kerfuffle during last Sunday's SIOA rally

I have known Muslims who are very good people, but they tend to be "back-slidder" who don't follow Islam too closely.

Islam, however, is dreadfully evil...far far worse than Christianity ever was. Perhaps you should read some of Robert's books, or read the Koran for youself. Are you familar with the history of Islam?

I take exception to your comment "you can't build a church, a synagogue or a temple in Saudi Arabia, Islam's birthplace" because SAUDI ARABIA IS A MUSLIM NATION UNDER STRICT SHARIA LAW WHICH FORBIDS ANY RELIGION BUT ISLAM.

But we here in the US are a democracy and we do give rights to all religions (although I would love to see an atheistic America arise but that's just me) - just because Saudi Arabia bans all religions but Islam doesn't mean we should be like them .....

"SAUDI ARABIA IS A MUSLIM NATION UNDER STRICT SHARIA LAW WHICH FORBIDS ANY RELIGION BUT ISLAM."

And this makes it okay?

"I would love to see an atheistic America arise but that's just me"

Banning all religion would be okay too?

No one is proposing any moslem's rights be violated in any way. We have a right to oppose their beliefs just as every citizen has a right to support or oppose any political or religious ideology.

So...you are an athiest who is against all religions (except for Islam).

Just the mere fact that you had to pull out the old "well, Christianity..." argument in a discussion about Islam speaks volumes.

Islam is not *just* another world religion to be lumped in with all the others. It is a geopolitical movement that is not substantially different from Nazi brand fascism. You see the building of a mosque as just another house of worship being built, the same as if a new synagogue was opening, or a baptist church. I see the mosque as a symbol of conquest.

It's really funny that you actually think you are helping the image of Islam and Muslims by posting on this site. You're a joke.

"An anti-jihad Woodstock, if you will!"
Make love, not jihad.

There are 12 million plus muslim in america now than Islam is the second largest religion in america after christian.

That's a mighty big number you got there partner...But I know, Mahoundians love big numbers...If you offer them the choice between a big number and a little number, they will go for the big one every time...

I'm an atheist and there is no way I'm a closet Muslim.

That means that if a religious organization legally sets up shop it must be accepted. Why the hate against Islam alone?"

Oh, I can answer that, as an atheist --just like Pat Condell, Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others -- just like you. Only, not like you, Pat Condell, and Oriana Fallaci, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, understand perfectly well that Islam is not only, and not even mainly, about providing an explanation for the creation of the universe and for describing a Creator and setting out some rituals for worship of that Creator.

No, Islam is a Total Belief-System. Islam provides a Total Regulation of Life, and a Complete Explanation of the Universe. Islam discourages free inquiry and encourages adherents -- requires them rather -- to be slaves of Allah. Islam sets out rules of conduct that are not based on morality, but are simply rules according to what Muhammad, a seventh-century Arab, is said to have transmitted from Allah, and those rules are not subject to questioning, moral or otherwise, or re-interpretation, but are simply divided as to What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited. And among the many things Prohibited are most forms of artistic expression, including all paintings of people, statues, and music, so that if one finds Muslims practicing this, it is only because they choose to ignore Islam at the edges, and have no defense if other Muslims come along and insist that they halt that music or that painting. Prohibited too is the kind of skeptical inquiry that so threatens the brittle structure and hold of Islam over the minds of its adherents, and in discouraging that, Islam discourages mental freedom of all kinds.

And above all, what is so worrisome about Islam is that it lays claim to the whole world. There is not only a Dar al-Islam and a Dar al-Harb, but between the two, there must be a state of permanent warfare. It is the duty of all Muslims -- a duty not tangential but central -- to win ever-greater amounts of territory for Islam, for Dar al-Islam. And that must be done by removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, but the struggle, or Jihad, to remove those obstacles must go on forever. It is not a case of recovering this or that sliver of territory once possessed by Muslims, though theoretically -- and emotionally -- priority in the To-Do List of Islam is given to such places that were once under Islam. These include not only Israel, whihch gets such exaggerated attention, but Spain and Portugal, Sicily, Greece, the Balkans (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia), Rumania, Bulgaria, much of Hungary, most of Russia, almost all of India, and more besides. But if the Sudan, or Nigeria, or southern Thailand, or part of the Philippines, or countries or parts of countries in Western Europe, fall to Islam before some of the lands on the To-Do List, that is fine with Muslims.

The main point is that Islam uncompromisiingly divides the world between Believer and Unbeliever, Musliim and Infidel. And Muslims owe their entire allegiance to Islam, and to fellow members of the Umma (that loyalty is one that becomes real mainly when Infidels are involved, for as the behavior of the Arabs toward non-Arab Muslims makes clear, Islam is also a vehicle for Arab supremacism), and as the behavior of rich Muslim states toward poor Muslim states also makes clear, there is no real sharing or help among Muslims; the only help is that provided against Infidels.

I could go on, but why should I? Your question has been answered sufficiently.

There is no comparison between the Total Belief-System of Islam -- called, faute de mieux, in modern times, a "religion," (earlier Western men called it not a "religion" but a "faith" or "a fanatical faith" -- this "great religions of the world" business started mainly in the early 20th century, with American Protestant schoolbooks of the "Different Peoples of the World" type, with a unit on "The World's Great Religions."

Islam is a threat to me and to you. Christianity is not. Judaism is not. Hinduism is not. Buddhism is not. But Islam....Islam is quite different. And more and more people, despite the best efforts of those in authority to try to make us believe otherwise, are examining the evidence of their senses (including the daily Jihad news from around the world, but also books on Islam, and the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira themselves) and discovering this, disturbing and unpleasant as it is, to be true.

And they will continue to do so, and the race is on: will enough people have grasped the meaning, and the menace, of Islam in time to take the measures necessary to adequately protect themelves, or will the crazed squandering of resources, including the transfer of vast sums from the Infidel peoples to Muslims -- even beyond the fantastic sums, the trillions, that have gone to Muslim oil-rich states, battening on an accident of geology -- stop, and reasonable, effective, and much less burdensome measures, be taken in time?

One hopes. One keeps on hoping.

The musques will be built as the political elites see Islam as the way of the the future.

Interesting thought, DOI, but do remember that in America, the "political elites" serve at the whim of the people.

Unlike in islamic cesspools, we have this very neat, very precise concept enshrined in our Constitution. It's called:

We the People...

While you fester in your islamic utopia over there in Dearborn or Oakland (or wherever), the precept of 'Sharia' becoming the 'supreme' law of the land is pure f*cking fantasy. Yeah, let the 'political elites' continue to approve of "musques". But in the end, there will be Hell to pay.

God Bless the Second Amendment!

I too am an atheist and there is no way I'm a closet Muslim.

Beer Me
-Rick

WTH, pass me some pork ribs too!

*delurk*

"Too bad Olberman's show isn't in a studio where they have the big windows facing the street or we could just make a huge blowup of Mr. Nassralla's kind letter and someone could hold it up for the benefit of the cameras."

Olberman's studio is at 30 Rock, and does have a window with a considerable street view.

*relurk*

This is very common -- "secret" Muslims will invariably present as atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Buddhists, Jews, or Wiccans.

Not saying Snackbar isn't being truthful -- I'm sure he is. But on other web sites, I spend the majority of my time "crap detecting" (as Wellington calls it) the fake persona cloaks.

Islam, Channe, like Nazism and Marxism, should be legal in free nations, but optimally only with the understanding by an informed body politic that all are enemies of democracy, freedom and equality under the law. Most in free polities grasp that Nazism and Marxism are rotten (though many of the Western elites have yet to realize that Karl Marx's prescription for mankind's ills is pernicious nonsense). By contrast, most in free polities have yet to understand that Islam too, hiding behind its religious veil, is rotten to the core and would destroy the best of the West if only it were given the chance. And therein lies the rub-----ignorance of Islam (e.g., Keith Olbermann or Contessa Brewer).

You're right, banning Islam is not the solution. Rather, learning far more about this warped interpretation of man and the cosmos is, with denigration aplenty (including heaps of mockery) following in the path of this knowledge. You know this or should know it. But do you? When you get the chance, let me and others know that you know that Islam eventually has to go the way of all other totalitarian systems. You will do this, won't you?

In this tale by Aesop, guess which character best represents Islam, then which best represents the west?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2cu5HauS1E&feature=related

I believe Channe has left da building.

"Why the hate against Islam alone?"

You're new here, eh?

Let's see, maybe it's because this religion is responsible for nearly 3,000 dead civilians on our soil, in a time of peace? And that's just 9/11 alone and speaking of only the U.S. I've lost track of the bombings and beheadings and honor killings and all the rest - all over the world.

"Shouldn't you be more upset with the city instead of calling people "Islamic supremacists."

We're upset with both. The followers of Islam for doing it and the city for allowing it. We call them Islamic supremacists because they do this sort of thing to show that their religion is SUPREME over all others. Islam commands it.

"I come to your site often, Mr. Spencer because I do support your belief that radical Islam is a major threat to the world.

...

I find plenty of things about Christianity that annoy me yet I don't get upset and protest if someone wants to build a church as long as it's done legally."

I find it hard to believe that 1) you come here often and 2) that you know the first thing about Islam. If you did you wouldn't be saying these contradictory things and making this silly comparison.

Christians aren't the ones committing acts of violence toward and oppression of unbelievers all over the world, in obedience to their religion. That would be because Christianity neither teaches nor condones such behavior. In contrast, Muslims ARE committing acts of violence toward and oppression of unbelievers all over the world. That would be because their religion DOES teach and condone this behavior.

I think you're a liar or a troll or Muslim. Which is it?

This is the funniest post I've seen on JW. Thanks for the laugh.

Maybe next time you should make sure your cat or your baby is not pushing the keys on the computer before you hit 'post'.

"I want to make it clear that we are not haters of Muslims, but we are against the Islamist agenda in America, the same agenda that drove us out of our homeland Egypt."

I believe these are also the views of R.Spencer and P. Geller. Muslims can change, there are many ex Muslims. It’s their core belief in Islam that we oppose. This hateful ideology is set in stone and the Muslims must be made aware of all the flaws and illogical verses of this koran. As well as the abnormal character of their perfect prophet.
We may not be able to change this idiology but we can oppose it, we can oppose sharia, and we can oppose muslims.

Agree with you. Robert and Pamela are patriots. Yes, there is the hope that muslims can change.

We are really fortunate to have an organized cause such as JW and others. It is necessary to expose the evil which is built into islam. One could not deny though, that there are good people in every society.

Frustration comes from viewing the threat, witnessing the events, and literally watching the world being swallowed by the threat that islam represents.

Being a veteran of over twenty years, stationed in six countries, have joined the Veteran Defenders of America to do what I can for the rest of my time. It is a just cause.

There must be a solution, we must take constant action, the threat is to real. It is the most incidious war mankind has ever faced, and many remain oblivious, happy to play video games. All the while silent jihad eats away at the fabric of our nation.

Appreciate your reply, thank you for your observation, blessings to all.

tropicthunder also wrote:

"Most NYCers disapprove of the mega mosque near Ground Zero."

If that were true, we would have seen not 10,000 people at this most crucial event, but a HUNDRED THOUSAND.

That would be a great idea. If Robert personally forwards Mr. Nassralla's post directly to Olbermann, who knows, maybe he'll correct himself on his show (I doubt it though). Still, since Robert is a somebody, the powers that be over at MSNBC may listen.

"To experience being driven out of their homeland, and not to hate muslims is an excellent ability. "

In my opinion, anyone who does not directly despise all Muslims is either an idiot, or is trying to perform very flexible gymnastics in order to appease our PC MC Masters.

I don't despise those Muslims who are Muslim in name only. I actually have several friends who would call themselves "Muslim" if you asked them what their religion is, but they never go to a mosque, never pray to Allah, and live their lives like any typical Westerner. They probably aren't really Muslim at all, but they just claim to be because of their families heritage and whatnot. I have no problem with these people, and I'm sure if you pointed out a few of the interesting tidbits about Muhammad and the history of Islam, they would renounce it in a second.

DOI: the figure of 12 million Muslims in the US in laughably , disingenuously, overblown. Even CAIR usually claims about 7 million. The best estimates are that there are some 1.8 million Muslims in the US.

Source: US Religious Identification Survey, 2008 and Pew Research Center studies. That's about 0.6% of the US population.

Why do Muslims feel the need to exaggerate the number so egregiously? I know that answer to that; don't tell me. But there are facts (above) and there are fantasies. Your figure, DOI is pure fantasy, and only quoted to advance your agenda of supremacism. It won't wash on this site, for here we know about your taqiyya.

Nice try. Not.

DDA: this is totally OT, but I want to get your input to a draft article I've written re Australian Senators Crean and Sherry who are pushing Shariah finance in Oz.
I'm hoping to get it in as an Op-ed in the Australian press, but would like some independent input. I've got Dave Clark -- an Aussie finance guy based in the Middle East -- helping me as well.
We're trying to stop the Islamification of Australia! You're one of the most insightful posters on this site, so hoping you may have time to look at the draft.
BTW: if you'd like a Word doc of this, just send mail to fu.saisee@gmail.com
Cheers
PF in Hong Kong
(sorry about the OT, folks, this was the only way I knew to get in touch with DDA)

Draft: http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2010/06/dont-drink-sherry-nicks-dangerous.html

"Not a single Muslim who has posted here in the years I have been following JW has ever put forward even a half-convincing argument why Islam should be respected and trusted. Not once."

I agree, Wellington ...and I've been following JW for over 6 years now.

Meeker

Thanks.

I'll have a look at it. I've got Sookhdeo's useful book about shari'a finance to help me get a handle on the subject.

I better stay away from the commenting for a little while and get some pollie-pestering letters written, too!

What some of these guys need to know is this: that if they were to publicly renounce Islam and declare themselves apostate, they would be safe from what Nonie Darwish calls 'allah's enforcers'. At present, since our Infidel governments are refusing to face that particular fact - that the Ummah works rather like the Mafia - if you try to leave, you can be assassinated - there isn't much serious protection offered for defectors.

**That** I suspect is what keeps some 'undeclared apostates' inside the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob; the fact that if they do try to bolt, they're liable to be killed.

You might try raising the subject of the Apostasy Law with your nice, 'slack Muslim' friends and watch their reaction - do they deny its existence? its applicability?. Bring up the SIOA freedom buses. Mention the Rifqa Bary case. See what happens.

Another way to find out just how 'slack' or nominally-Muslim they are? - raise the topic of a Muslim girl's dating, taking as a lover, or **marrying** a non-Muslim man who remains a non-Muslim throughout the relationship. Watch their reactions.

If that were true, we would have seen not 10,000 people at this most crucial event, but a HUNDRED THOUSAND.

How true, Hesperado.

I have been away from newspapers TV and Internet, since 29 May, but I thought often about the event and of course fantasized about a huge number of people that would show up. I told my hiking companion that it is more than reasonable to expect that in a 8 million people city that lost 3000 of its own there would be at least ONE PERCENT wanting to express their opposition to that mosque farce. She said she doesn't believe the number will be greater than in a football match between average Danish teams. Something in me said she may be right, but I refused to acknowledge the voice. What a disappontment.
Good Lord, what is happening to us? Has honour become a perfectly abstract notion to us?
Has a natural and GOOD impulse to honour and avenge our dead been replaced by obvious idiocy of grand schemes of winning hearts and minds of muzzlems, transforming that hideous Mohammedan Cult into an innocuous private matter by forcible imposing DEMOCRACY on its murderous followers?

If demography is destiny, then idiocy is even more so. What we see now is the alignment of the two - muzzlem demography and West's idiocy.

"If demography is destiny, then idiocy is even more so. What we see now is the alignment of the two - muzzlem demography and West's idiocy."

Not idiocy but fear is destiny for a culture. As Mo realized:

"Allah's Apostle said, "... I have been made victorious with terror ... (al-Bukhari Vol. 4, Bk 52, No. 220).

Demografic capitulation and spiritual capitulation based upon fear could make our spineless civilization end in a wimp and not a bang.

I don't stand in line to verbally bash over 1.5 billion people.

How kind of you...You like these 1.5 billion people a lot more than they like you...In fact almost all of them hate your guts...And rightly they should...after all you are kufr, and the Quran clearly states that Allah has a really dim view of you...Quran 98:6 pretty well sums it up when Allah calls you...'The worst of creatures'...How can you blame a pious Mahoundian from emulating their god? Kufr is warring with Allah...It is a pious Mahoundians duty to convert you or.......jihad against you...
Well I guess it's ok for a big hearted fellow like yourself to give Islam and Mahoundians a pass on this...But I don't think I will...

'My point stands - if Muslims play by the rules and build a mosque with the approval of NYC, who are we to protest the Muslims for this ? Blame the city, if anything...'

Your point needs a little sharpening...The City officials who approve this should be tarred and feathered and run out of town...right along with the jihadist who want to rub our faces in 911, by building a phallic symbol of 'victory by rape' looking down on the dead bodies of their victims...

'who are we to protest'...

Is that something to protest? You betcha lone rider...If you don't protest that you are worthless as an American...An AINO...American In Name Only...

Not idiocy but fear is destiny for a culture. As Mo realized: "Allah's Apostle said, "... I have been made victorious with terror …

What he said then was quite true when mohammad had a formidable army of fanatic warriors at his disposal, but it doesn’t apply today. There is no Islamic military able to terrorize the West.
No, I don’t think the West is afraid of mohammedan terror. If a terror, or violence, competition between the two were allowed to take place mohamedanism would be over in a matter of hours. (I am talking here about pure military violence, or war if you wish, not some foolish projects of militarily democratizing islam.)

You don’t seriously believe that we are opening our borders to the Islamic invasion because we re afraid of Islamic terror. Wouldn’t simply closing the borders for Islamic immigration, crack down on and forcibly removing anti-westrn mohammedans (or all mohammedans, if necessary) suffice to restore the safety and peace we enjoyed a couple of decades ago?

The West has converted to the religion of PC and what it fears most is the ruling of the Most (un)Holy Office of the PC Inquisition. It is the idiocy of worshipping the god of PC that may be our undoing. Not the fear of terrorism.

Channe in your previous post you stated that since Saudi Arabia considers themselves a Muslim state they have the right not to allow people to build churches and temples there. Fair enough how about all other so called Muslim countries? They all have the right to discriminate? So if India calls itself a Hindu nation then they should give the right to smash all these mosques and churches?

Well by your logic we have declared the grounds of the WTC and surrounding areas to be holy grounds and we don't want the symbol of the evil ideology that caused their destruction to be built there. Furth more as American s with rights of free speech we have every damn right to protest. Despite the best efforts of fools and dhimmmis like you.

"Anyway I have a question: Why do you think western media is so "tolerant" of Islamic excesses, and so partial when comes to any event involving Islamic or Muslim?
I can't understand why global media and politicians are so ready to accept any lie, any unlawfulness coming from a Muslim source that will be never tolerated if coming from a "normal" citizen?

Is there anybody that can answer this question?"

The 21st century secular West worships at the altar of Political Correctness, in which all people are the same and all religions are the same. Rubbish, of course.

Why did people "tolerate" Fascists? Why did people "tolerate" Nazis? Fascists and Nazis should have been stopped from the get-go. Just as we should be stopping the 21st century demographic march of barbaric Islam. But, I suppose a lot of blood will have to be shed first before that happens. Which is how the human condition works, somehow. And then we'll say "Never
Again" and 70 years later another mass-murder totalitarian ideology will rear it's ugly head and be tolerated. Repeat cycle.

That is also called being terrorized into silence and dhimmitude. Didn't their prophet said the he was made victorius through terror? They are following his example.
I see this whenever I hear these non Muslims making excuses for Islam and Muslims. People like this channe who are cowards and sycophants , are ruining India with policies that favor the Muslims over anybody else. This is simply due to threats of terror.

Allah Snackbar,

"I don't despise those Muslims who are Muslim in name only."

Would you not despise people who were "Nazi in name only", or "KKK in name only", or "Satanists in name only"? What does "in name only" mean but that they are passively enabling a worldwide system of evil far worse than Nazism, KKK and Satanism combined.

"I actually have several friends who would call themselves "Muslim" if you asked them what their religion is, but they never go to a mosque, never pray to Allah, and live their lives like any typical Westerner."

You apparently haven't been really digesting the mountain of data reported by Jihad Watch over the years. 1) There have been too many cases of Muslims who were "not religious" suddenly flaring up into violence. And 2) Muslims lie when they are in positions of weakness. It is more reasonable to assume that your Muslim "friends" are pretending to be mild because they don't feel comfortable revealing themselves to you. You just haven't asked them the right questions. If you asked them the right questions, their seeming non-Muslimness would reveal itself to be a surface, and the "inner Muslim" would come out, in anger, irrationality, glimpses of hatred of you, and under the right circumstances, in lashing out in violence.

" They probably aren't really Muslim at all, but they just claim to be because of their families heritage and whatnot."

A nice theory. But I am not going to risk my life, the lives of my loved ones, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens on the hypothesis of some Western guy who has a need to be tolerant of the Other.

"I'm sure if you pointed out a few of the interesting tidbits about Muhammad and the history of Islam, they would renounce it in a second."

Ah, so you haven't tried this experiment yet, eh? Why not? And if you do get around to trying this experiment, don't by shy -- by forceful and blunt, yet of course not belligerent. Report back to us please.

"I don't hate or despise either one, but I don't trust them one iota either, and don't want them around myself, my family, or your family."

I agree that despising and even hate are peripheral to our main concern -- our safety. However, people like Allah Snackbar who have Muslim "friends" seem to go beyond merely not despising them to actually trusting them.

That said, any person I could not trust because of the murderous, dangerous, twisted, perverse, ghoulishly violent, grotesquely evil and hateful culture they belong to and do not abandon would be a most curious person not to feel any animus against. Personally, I don't really feel much emotion against Muslims; I concentrate on waking up my fellow Westerners to the danger Muslims pose. Feeling too emotional about Muslims betrays the lingering residue of hope, because you only get angry at someone if you continue to consider them a hopeful potential fellow human being. I have long since left that naive notion behind about Muslims. The danger they pose is more like an impending hurricane, earthquake, or a pack of jackals or hyenas surrounding my house. It would be not only counter-productive for me to get angry and "hate" that pack of jackals or hyenas, it would also be rather odd. The appropriate response to them is simply to figure out a way to stop them from endangering my house.

The anger I do feel -- indeed it rises to loathing and fury -- is naturally aroused by my fellow Westerners who indulge in PC MC idiocy about Islam; because about them, I do continue to consider them hopeful potential fellow human beings -- with the exception, perhaps, of those on the far Left.

"That means that if a religious organization legally sets up shop it must be accepted." This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of First Amendment law.

The First Amendment prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In its most obvious sense, however, “exercise” implies action. Thus, if the First Amendment's “free exercise” clause were taken literally, it would mean that Congress cannot enact laws which in any way interfere with or restrict a person's religious actions. It is obvious, however, that anarchy and chaos would reign if people could justify any act or undertaking in the name of religious freedom. With this in mind, the Supreme Court has recognized that religious freedom, as manifest in religious action, cannot be absolute in a country founded on the rule of law. This recognition means, of course, that the First Amendment cannot quite mean what it literally says. This is reflected in the holding of the Supreme Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) where the court stated: "[T]he Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society."

On this basis, the courts have regularly upheld laws against plural marriage where the state has a compelling interest in preserving monogamy, or laws setting minimum marriage age laws (which conflicts with Muslim belief), or compulsory immunization laws (which conflicts with pantheist belief), or mandating taking children to hospital (which conflicts with Christian Science belief), all areas where the state has a compelling interest in protecting children, etc.

Through the years, various courts have made exceptions (law requiring all children under 16 to attend school struck down as violating Amish belief); and one court that even held that laws prohibiting the use of hallucinogens were unconstitutional as applied to certain Native American practices.

However, in 1990, the Supreme Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), shut the door on this kind of exception-making and stated: "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Congress acted swiftly in response to the Smith case and passed a statute intended to overrule Smith called the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", 42 U.S.C. §2000bb(1)-(5). The purpose of this law was specifically to reinstate two prior Supreme Court cases which were specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in Smith. Although the RRFA has not yet been directly reviewed by the Supreme Court, it has been held to be unconstitutional in 71 subsequent court decisions. This is not surprising considering the fact that the determination of what is or is not constitutional is exclusively within the province of the Supreme Court. It was decided as far back as 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, that Supreme Court decisions on constitutionality are BINDING on Congress not the other way around. The fundamental principles of separation of powers and rule of law rests on this bedrock principle Congress can not overrule the Supreme Court on constitutionality questions.

In conclusion and to put a finer point on it, by way of example, just as freedom of speech does not give one the right to falsely scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, a law which made it a crime for Muslims to espouse the BELIEF that non-believers or apostates should be killed would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment and be struck down. A general law, on the other hand, which made criminal the practice BY ANYONE of killing someone because they did not believe in the killer's religion or because they had chosen to leave the killer's religion for another (or become atheist) would without doubt be upheld as constitutional and not in conflict with the First Amendment.

I have assumed throughout that Islam is a religion as defined in current First Amendment law. Whether that would or should continue to be the case is a question for another day.

The friend I'm closest with lives with her white, non-Muslim boyfriend and is still in college. I've talked to her several times about Islam and she told me she and her family are not "devout in any way." She hasn't been honor killed by her family for having a non-Muslim boyfriend yet, so I think she's telling the truth.

Channe:
"SAUDI ARABIA IS A MUSLIM NATION UNDER STRICT SHARIA LAW WHICH FORBIDS ANY RELIGION BUT ISLAM.

But we here in the US are a democracy and we do give rights to all religions (although I would love to see an atheistic America arise but that's just me) - just because Saudi Arabia bans all religions but Islam doesn't mean we should be like them ....."

I hear this from so many PCMC-people. But I like to look worldwide. And for convenience-sake divide the world in 7 religion-groups; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, All the rest of faiths and life-convictions. Prior to dividing the world in countries.

If you look at mankind as composed of these 7 faith-categories, then you can see that 6 of them, by and large, are pretty well prepared to live as equals under reasonable equal rights. Many of them under Democratic rules.

Only Islam wants to be treated equal when in the countries of the other 6 faiths, while it still maintains supremacy, great dominance over followers of other faiths in their own territories, the 56 countries of the OIC.

Significant in the context of 7 faith-categories is that Islam celebrates conversion INTO Islam but prohibits, on pain of death, conversion OUT of Islam.

In these circumstances it is only logical that people of the other 6 faith-categories treat all the followers of these 6 indeed equal and tolerant and democratic, but not the followers of Islam. At least not without conditions, foremost among them absolute reciprocity.

The more knowledgeable other faith-followers get about teachings of Islamic texts and leaders, and the intentions, attitudes and actions of their followers, the less credibility and trustworthyness they tend to give to Muslims.

Especially if in their holy texts Muslims are commanded to be first and foremost loyal to their faith, prophet, holy book and their worldwide community, the Ummah. Which trumps all other loyalties. As they are also commanded to take the Quran literally, not symbolically.

And we see all the time that Muslims always side with their co-religionists against infidels in every conflict. They seem to consider as good that which is good for Islam and as bad that which is bad for Islam. Instead of looking for good or bad regardless of their faith as many other humans mostly do, like their PCMC-defenders, although these grossly overdo it.

Channe,

Would you see the construction of a mosque in the middle of...Oh, let's say Arlington National Cemetary, as something distasteful and inappropriate?

Sites of such catastrophes as those of 9/11 are considered to be graves, and you don't evacuate your bowels on someone's grave, no matter where that grave is located.

Don't believe me? Check out the USS Arizona. Check out the RMS Titanic. Check out the remains of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald.

The site of the proposed mosque is inappropriate. Period.

"Would you not despise people who were "Nazi in name only", or "KKK in name only", or "Satanists in name only"? What does "in name only" mean but that they are passively enabling a worldwide system of evil far worse than Nazism, KKK and Satanism combined."

Does Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, and the others who are actively involved in resisting the global Islamic movement, believe that every single "Muslim" is a "Nazi" or a "KKK" member? No they don't. I think it's easy to lump everybody into the same group, but there *are* "Muslims" out there who do not believe in jihad against the unbeliever, global conquest, and many have no clue about what their religion actually teaches.

"You apparently haven't been really digesting the mountain of data reported by Jihad Watch over the years."

I have been following Jihadwatch for a long time, and I am very aware of the threat Islam poses, so feel free to shove that strawman after you are done attacking it.

"There have been too many cases of Muslims who were "not religious" suddenly flaring up into violence. And 2) Muslims lie when they are in positions of weakness. It is more reasonable to assume that your Muslim "friends" are pretending to be mild because they don't feel comfortable revealing themselves to you. You just haven't asked them the right questions. If you asked them the right questions, their seeming non-Muslimness would reveal itself to be a surface, and the "inner Muslim" would come out, in anger, irrationality, glimpses of hatred of you, and under the right circumstances, in lashing out in violence."

I don't deny that taqiyya exists, and I am well aware that seemingly non religious Muslims have the capability of suddenly becoming radicalized, but the few "Muslim" friends I have are not like this. My friend lives with her white, non-Muslim boyfriend and still goes to college. I highly doubt a devout Muslim is going to live with her infidel boyfriend.

"A nice theory. But I am not going to risk my life, the lives of my loved ones, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens on the hypothesis of some Western guy who has a need to be tolerant of the Other."

Right, I'm so "tolerant." You know so much about me, Wellington, because I have a couple of Westernized "Muslim" friends who, in my opinion, are not Muslims at all. I claimed to be a Christian for years, yet, I never went to church, never read the Bible, and didn't know much at all about Christ. Once I got honest about my beliefs, I realized I wasn't a Christian at all. There are many Muslims out there who would fall into the same category... they just need to wake up and be honest with themselves about their beliefs, and they would no longer be Muslims.

Sorry, I meant Hesperado, not Wellington.

Does Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, and the others who are actively involved in resisting the global Islamic movement, believe that every single "Muslim" is a "Nazi" or a "KKK" member? No they don't.

What does "being a member of" mean? If you mean a card-carrying activist member, I don't think so either about all Muslims (though I do about most Muslims). There are other ways of being a member -- by being a Muslim and not renouncing it, for one. Until a Muslim renounces Islam, they are at best countenancing the evil and danger Islam presents to the world. That's hardly sound timber on which to build a relationship on any level of trust or ethics.

but there *are* "Muslims" out there who do not believe in jihad against the unbeliever, global conquest, and many have no clue about what their religion actually teaches.

How do you know what Muslims know in their heads? And even if we concede that there must be some Muslims who fit that kind of category, how do we know how many there are? And how can be know which ones are genuinely ignorant, and which are feigning ignorance? And how do we know which ones have imbibed enough from the atmospherics of Islam to ignite at some unpredictable future point into sudden jihad? I'm not willing to gamble the safety of my society on your kind of complaisance.

I have been following Jihadwatch for a long time, and I am very aware of the threat Islam poses, so feel free to shove that strawman after you are done attacking it.

You may have been following Jihad Watch, but not digesting the full horror in all its details.

My friend lives with her white, non-Muslim boyfriend and still goes to college. I highly doubt a devout Muslim is going to live with her infidel boyfriend.

The problem of Islam extends far more widely and more deeply than the word "devout" implies. Being a Muslim isn't merely about the outward rituals, it's about a worldview absorbed into the psyche from surrounding atmospherics in a variety of ways. Again, you need to ask this particular friend various specific questions to penetrate behind the secular mask she wears. Rhetorical questions about Muhammad that unflinchingly detail his perversity, evil and injustice would be useful. Also, if you pursued a line of questions about the recent Gaza incident, I guarantee you that you would see the mask slip after a while -- but it all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.

I claimed to be a Christian for years, yet, I never went to church, never read the Bible, and didn't know much at all about Christ.

You are superimposing Western cultural insouciance about religion onto Muslims, and assuming that same type of insouciance is possible in their cultural psyche. There might be an extremely rare tiny minority that manifest this trait. The chances that you happen to know a few from this extremely tiny minority are slim at best. Your belief that there are "many" of this type of Muslim out there is glib, unsubstantiated, and reckless considering the dangers Muslims pose to us, which are only increasing as time goes on.

Welcome back, Thomas_h! ...how was your trip? :)

Bravo. You are right.

"To compare Christianity, or even Judaism, to Islam is like comparing a pet rabbit to a crocodile. There is no comparison."

So right.

Thank you, Champ,

Buona giornata!

It was one of the most wonderful trips of my life. What a treasure Italy is. One can virtually touch the history of the West there. We visited small precious towns of Umbria and Tuscany full of beauty, charm and crowded with presence of the Christian culture – the true source of our freedom and strength. I can think of no better way a westerner may be reminded of his cultural identity and what he owes the generations of the builders and defenders of our civilization than spending some time discovering Italy. We didn’t go to Bologna Cathedral to see the fresco depicting mohammed in Hell, but we met some Australians who just returned from Bologna and reported that the bum is still in Hell and Italians have no plans of censoring the fresco so it doesn’t offend the religious feelings of muzlems.
Viva Italia!

And, of course, I would love to tell you about the wine and food, but unfortunately, I am not a poet.
Cheers,
Thomas

Thanks for writing, Thomas, and it's good to learn that you and yours had a fun and memorable trip to Italy ...

"We didn’t go to Bologna Cathedral to see the fresco depicting mohammed in Hell, but we met some Australians who just returned from Bologna and reported that the bum is still in Hell and Italians have no plans of censoring the fresco so it doesn’t offend the religious feelings of muzlems."

Ahaha! ...yeah the truth about muhammad (perdition is upon him) is too hot for muslims to handle. Go Italy! :)