Dakota Beacon

When religious freedom is distorted into acceptance of Islam as “religion”, we must reassess our definition of "religion" for the purposes of our First Amendment.

Our tradition and our law provide for equal protection under that law.  They also provide for freedom of religion. Our law specifically requires freedom of speech, of assembly, of press.  How does this work when we have a “religion” - or a political ideology masquerading as a religion - which cannot abide freedom of expression in the individual, in the press, will not tolerate equality under the law?  And seeks to impose its tenets on everyone, Muslim or not.

In the 1920s through the 1950s, America was conflicted over the “Red Scare”, the threat of communism.  Not unrealistic, when you consider that communism is intended to be world-wide, and that as late as 1956, Nikita Kruschev warned us that “We will bury you!”  It was and remains a palpable threat to freedom in America and everywhere else. But there is at least one difference between communism and Islam.  We were free to debate and discuss communism openly.  No one dared to shut down our discussion of its merits, or silence those who warned of its dangers to our liberty.  It was expected that there would be opposition and there was and still is a free conversation about its dangers or, for proponents, its perceived merits.  Not so with Islam. If we criticize Islam we are “Islamophobes”, not worthy of being heard out on any of our concerns. We are called “haters”. In fact some will call my message herein a message of “hate”.  It is not. It is a clear-eyed, objective look at the impossibility of Islam interfacing in any way with our way of life in America under our Constitution.  

We were free to caricature communists - or Kruschev, Brezhnev, Putin, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky.  When Muslims or Mohammed are caricatured, editorial offices of publications are blown up and the artists and editors murdered.  Mollie Norris, a West Coast cartoonist, remains in hiding many years after daring to have a “draw Mohammed” initiative. Pamela Geller, Robert  Spencer and others were threatened with murder in Garland, Texas, for the same idea.  If one makes a movie critical of Islam, he is found with a note stuck in his chest, dead on the street.  Islam is not compatible with Western life in any way.  

Here’s a dilemma for you, one which has been played out in more than one American jurisdiction.  A Muslim woman petitions to the court for relief - her Muslim husband beats her. The court says, too bad, lady.  We are according to you all the respect of your heritage. We are going to treat you as though you never left Afghanistan.  Your husband owns you. He has every right to abuse you as he sees fit, or to kill you, if it comes to that. Mohammed says it’s okay and who are we, mere Americans, to quibble with that?  Case dismissed. Islam demands at least termporarily, a parallel system of justice. When Muslims are numerous enough our system sill simply be replaced with Sharia. That is the goal. With this we are not equal under the law.  In other words, the first principle of our Declaration of Independence and the cornerstone of our Constitution is rendered moot. We simply cannot tolerate this. (For an extensive discussion promoting the use of Sharia - indeed anticipating its perfunctory acceptance, read this.  This is a truly shocking paper which accepts wholly the idea of using a foreign law contrary to our own in our own courts.)  A case in New Jersey highlights the obvious dangers. Family Court Judge Joseph Charles:  "The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."  Although Charles was overturned on appeal, this is indicative of the insoluble issue of inequality under law.  

Or this one - a Muslim accused of murder, who may be caught dead to rights, appears in court for jury selection.  His attorney makes sure that the jury does not exclude Muslims. If a Muslim is on the jury he can hang it - no verdict.  New trial. If there is no Muslim on the jury there will be a call for a mistrial if he is convicted. No Muslim need fear the gallows just because he murdered someone.  Again, equality under the law is gone.

Or this one - a citizen writes a letter to the editor of the local newspaper and it is rejected out of hand because it calls for vetting of immigrants as to whether they will abide by our Constitution.  That message is unacceptable. Or maybe the writer wants only to give asylum first to those who are genuinely persecuted. Christians are being slaughtered throughout Africa and Asia. But they are routinely ignored and rejected for help from the West.  The West prefers the kind of immigrant who will turn on his host and blow him up. The citizen is silenced. No free speech for him. Our First Amendment is canceled.

A little Muslim girl takes off her hijab at school and revels in the few moments of perceived freedom.  The ignorant and self-important school teacher threatens to tattle on her to her parents.  She has no idea that they are more likely to kill her than scold her. The lack of understanding or knowledge of this “religion” and its laws gets people harmed, perhaps killed, by these useful idiots.  And we are denied an objective education on Islam - because it cannot be done without damning Islam. It cannot be “politically correct” to be honest about Islam. Our teachers have been indoctrinated in the “benefits of diversity” without being told of the implications of this diversity in terms of living with Sharia or in a “conservative” Muslim family or Muslim community.

We also need to remember that conversion to any other faith for a Muslim - apostasy - is punishable within Islam by death.   So, little chance that these people will leave their murderous religion wholesale when they get to America’s shores.  We cannot enforce our First Amendment because Muslims are not allowed to exercise it. Again, no equality under law.

Our nation is not one of those with a long genealogical pedigree, like France, or Hungary, or Germany.  Our people are united by something even more powerful - a belief in values of liberty and self-direction, of hard-won freedom to worship as we please, to speak freely, to assemble, to petition our government for redress of grievances, to vote.  Women have won rights in our country, rights to move about freely, to a career if they wish, to vote, to run for office. To dress as they like. To marry or not as they wish. No one owns a woman in America . . . unless he is Muslim. Our pedigree in America is one of ideas.  Our pedigree is our Constitution.

We fought a terrible civil war about a century-and-a-half ago.  We lost 600,000 valuable American lives. We set our economy back decades, we live today with the wounds of that war, all to abolish slavery.  Slavery is unacceptable in America. Yet slavery is totally acceptable in Islam and Sharia - an institution we are permitting to intrude into our body politic.  This schism is not tolerable in our society.  

We should quit admitting anyone into America who is Muslim.  Perhaps we will lose out on one or two sterling characters who would come here and be model citizens.  But it’s worth it to miss out on them if we can miss out on the rest of this. We can’t have them here hacking up Jews peacefully celebrating Hanukkah.  We can’t have them beating their wives or strangling their daughters. We can’t have them blowing up innocent specators at the Boston Marathon, or concert-goers or patrons of a gay bar or co-workers at a Christmas party, or shooting up fellow soldiers in the mess hall.  We need, in other words, to outlaw Islamic practices in the United States. We are at war with Islam and it poses a direct threat to our peace and safety at home. We would not have tolerated the practice of Nazism. In fact we don’t now, except that it is occurring in the name of “Islam”.  Disposing of this threat should be the aim of every reasonable American. We should also refuse to issue a visa or any kind of visiting permit to anyone of any religion who comes from a country with whom we do not have an extradition treaty. We can’t have people coming here who commit murder and terrorism and assault and let them post bail and return to our enemy countries who will not extradite them.  I am fully aware of the nice young n Muslim man or woman you may know.  As long as they are the only ones in town they and we are safe.  But this is not going to be the case.  As we bring more and more Muslims into America their freedom and our safety diminish exponentially.

I read this over just now.  I thought, “This will get me in trouble.  I don’t dare say this.” And that led me to understand that I need to say it - because I believe it.  And because I still have the right to say it. In fact, I was writing this last night. Today I was browsing in Front Page, which is generally an intrepid truth-teller.  I read this by Jason Hill.  Many who have experienced first-hand the effects of Islam in their homelands, have reached the same conclusion that I have by observation and through reading.  We have begun to admit of two standards - anything is acceptable from a Muslim writer and nothing is acceptable which criticizes Islam. So maybe this will be my last.  For whatever it’s worth, it remains my honest opinion. We are still entitled to an opinion, at least for a little while, by our Constitution.

It’s 2020.  This is a good time to clean up our act and return to sanity and a peaceful America.

(The above is my own opinion and does not anecessarily reflect the opinion of any other entity, including The Dakota Beacon.)

Comments:  (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)