Saturday, December 29, 2007

Desparate times, drastic measures

This is going to be a relatively short post. I just want to get the idea in print. I will revisit it later and develop the idea more fully. I'll enjoy your comments , if you are so moved.

The idea I'm setting forth has several inspirations. One, my brother-in-law got me Ken Burns video series on WWII for Christmas. Disc one covers several instances of regrettable moments in the fight against the Axis powers, specifically the Japanese. Regrettable in the sense of being a pity certain actions were deemed necessary, not in the sense that in hindsight it was necessarily wrong. First was the internment of Japaneses-Americans. I did not read the book Michelle Malkin wrote about this, In Defense of Internment, but from what I've read about it she cites evidence of espionage and such, that the U.S. needed to curtail, and believed the best way was to round them up and control them. From the high regard I hold Malkin's journalism/scholarship I'm confident she makes a good argument. I also imagine she finds deeply regrettable the fact that many, probably the vast majority, of Japanese-Americans were not only innocent of all suspicions, but deeply patriotic and deeply in love with America.

The second thing from Burns documentary was the testimony of U.S. veterans from the Bataan death march. One in particular spoke of the decision not to take prisoners, which was made after experiencing the utter, inhuman cruelty of the Japanese. You can judge these men if you will, I find it a perfectly rational response.

The other inspiration for this post is the assassination of Butto, along with the Canadian Muslim father who murdered his daughter for not wearing the headcovering, along with all the many, many instances we've learned of these past few years of the evil perpetrated by Muslims upon their own fellow Muslims, let alone upon their enemies. (Don't waste your time with a comment that seeks to relativize these actions I'm calling evil. If they're not morally evil, then the category has no meaning).

These are desperate times. We in America and in the civilized non-Muslim world and in the Muslim world also, are locked in mortal combat with those who have exercised their free will to become part of a death cult. A death cult not only because it threatens lethal violence upon whoever they deem apostate or infidel, but also because it seeks to extinguish so much that makes life a good thing.

Here's my idea. America has stood from its inception for the God-given rights of the individual. This is why our constitutional form of government seeks to protect us from tyranny in all forms. That is why we have a Bill of Rights. Is there any reason why we cannot logically extend these rights in a law that makes it illegal for any group, religious or otherwise, to authorize violence upon those within its group who choose to leave it or upon those it deems its enemy?

This is not to say that a group cannot condemn such an individual, shun them, disinherit them, or pronounce whatever eternal consequence upon them they wish. But they cannot, upon penalty of law, perform any act of physical violence upon them.

Who would object to such a law, I'd like to know? Well certainly the ACLU, that's a given since this law's purpose is to strengthen America. But who else? Jews? You can be many things antithetical to Judaism and they don't care. (Become a Christian and many Jews would renounce and shun you but that wouldn't offend this law.) Christians? We'll cry if one of our kids renounce Christ but we long ago stopped beating the tar out of them. (Not that those that did were likely to have been true Christians!) Atheists? Buddhists? Hindus? Not that I can imagine.

Who then? Well, I think we all know the answer to this one. Muslims! CAIR, ISNA, and every acronym describing a group of Muslims out there. And that's just the point. This isn't Saudi Arabia. You're welcome to be a Muslim here if you are willing to recognize you have no right to issue a fatwa calling for violence against any individual within the borders of these United States.

I happen to believe many, many Muslims in America would have no problem with this and that many, many would find it quite liberating. I think its apparent that one reason we've not had anything other than very small acts of terrorism since 9-11 (I don't buy into the idea that we've had NO acts of terrorism since 9-11) is because most Muslims in America like it over here. But many do not. And if they don't, and if they aren't willing to abide by this law, they have 2 choices- leave our shores or take up residence in our prisons.

Which brings me to the last point. This law must have teeth. If a mosque wants to remain a Wahabist, terrorist abetting , Osama loving outpost of hatred- its going down. I say the gov't burns it to the ground if, in a court of law, it is found guilty of breaking this law.

Before your knee jerks with howls of fascism, let me reiterate that I'm very cool with having "moderate" Muslims as my fellow citizens. I don't know many Muslims but I'm confident many are just that. As anecdotal evidence for this, I take the testimony of an Israeli friend I have who lives on one of the Kibbutzim that endures daily shelling by Kassam rockets sent by the lovely Palestinians in Gaza. I asked him about Muslims he's known personally. He said he has only known well about 20 or so in his many years as an Israeli, and he's not met one yet that he didn't like or that he felt was a threat to him. To me, that's remarkable. But if he says so, I believe him. And then I conclude that probably most are either "moderate" or would gladly be so if the influence of the radicals were removed.

1 comment:

T. F. Boggs said...

I agree completely. I think the same goes for broadcasting daily prayers over a loudspeaker here in America. If they want to create a Quranistan they need to go do it elsewhere. We don't even tolerate prayer in school here, or anything resembling it so we shouldn't tolerate public loudspeaker prayers as they do in Dearbornistan.