Muslims in America

Steve,

Most religions have complicated enough scriptures or sayings and a large enough group of adherents that they have different versions.  Such versions vary in the extent to which they are formally organized. 

We are dealing with a version of Islam, not with the entire religion 

Just as not all Christians are responsible for attempts to drop or seriously compromise the teaching of evolution in schools or to have the state interfere with abortion, gambling, or alcoholic beverages, so not all Muslims are responsible for violence.  This is true even though we can find things in the Christian Bible that can be interpreted as calling for these actions.

The version of Communism that came to power in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was responsible for tens of millions being slaughtered.  If someone identified themselves as being communist, but of a different version that disapproved of the slaughter, I wouldn't blame them personally for the slaughter and, if I wanted to argue with them, would find other ways to argue.  If they advocated the takeover of businesses by laborers and/or the government, a key point would be property rights and, more specifically, the rights of those who found business establishments and keep them going.

I am not saying Islam is of value.  It is a religion, which means it commits the very serious fundamental error of taking fundamental ideas arbitrarily on faith.  Like any religion I'm aware of, it upholds the anti-life altruist morality.  Like Christianity, Judaism, and Eckankar, it has at its center the grossly illogical concept of "God".  But this does not mean that everything about Islam is negative or that we should not distinguish among different versions of Islam.   

Doug, you wrote:

Most religions have complicated enough scriptures or sayings and a large enough group of adherents that they have different versions.  Such versions vary in the extent to which they are formally organized. 

Yes, but in your last post you had no problem making very clear judgments of all religions: "It [Islam] is a religion, which means it commits the very serious fundamental error of taking fundamental ideas arbitrarily on faith.  Like any religion I'm aware of, it upholds the anti-life altruist morality.  Like Christianity, Judaism, and Eckankar, it has at its center the grossly illogical concept of 'God'. "

Please note that you were able to make clear-headed, objective judgments despite having to generalize from a hodge-podge of different, 'complicated scriptures or sayings'.  There is no reason to treat Islam as exempt from judgment - read its 'complicated scriptures'.  Remember that the Koran is shared by every version of Islam - the same fundamentals.  Whose version is the more accurate interpretation?

Doug, 

The founding fathers did not want the executive branch to be able to declare war or to engage in war without a declaration of war.  They specified that the declaration was to be done by the elected officials that were more closely controlled by the citizens - the House of Representatives.

The principle, beyond the declaration of war being closer to the voters, was that the government defend our nation against foriegn aggression.  

In the past, a declaration of war was always against a nation-state.  Even when Jefferson finally sent our brand new navy against the Barbary pirates - middle-eastern nations were the declared enemy.  ("...from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved [by the Barbary pirates], they were being directed by leaders of Islamic nations." - Wikipedia) 

"Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'"  - Wikipedia.

The nations involved were Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis and the Sultanate of Morocco - but, collectively, they were the Ottoman Empire and usually acted as a single nation. 

"In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed 'An act for the protection of commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers', authorizing the President to '…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.' The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli -, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port." - Wikipedia

The Barbary States had been taking Americans as slaves, extorting the United States government to avoid attacks on American shipping, and taking merchant ships flying the American flag.

-------------

The two principles at stake were followed:  Congress authorized the war and it was to defend against attacks on Americans by foriegn actors.

--------------

The legislation we need today would declare war against those organizations engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States (ISIS, Al Queda, etc.)  That each such organization would be named explicitly (obviously, it could not be left to the discretion of the administration).  When new terrorist organizations spring up, Congress would amend the declaration of war to include them.  And the legislation would state that any person or organization providing material aid or support to such organizations could be convicted for aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.

Kyrel, you took the opposite side of the false coin when you asked "why aren't the vast majority of Muslims in America arrested, jailed, executed, or deported?".

Michael -- Your comments on this discussion thread aren't serious or fair. You're not accurately representing my questions or views. You need to learn to read.

At the top of the discussion, I asked why America and the Western states don't deport those folks in-country who support jihad and sharia. I'm still asking. I asked why America and the Western states don't jail those who significantly finance jihad and sharia. I'm still asking. I asked why America and the Western states don't execute the jihadis and shariaists, i.e. kill the killers and mass-enslavers. I'm still asking.

People have the absolute right to subscribe to any philosophy they wish, including embracing communism, Nazism, Satanism, and Islam. But intellectual enemies and traitors to Western liberalism of such severity don't merit the privilege of living in America, in my judgment. They're an objective threat. And once members of these four groups, and the like, start to practice their evil beliefs, and begin to coerce others accordingly, they're committing a crime. I especially think those who fund jihad and sharia at some fairly large level -- say $1,000 per year to The Holyland Foundation (as in the standard Muslim charity donation of 2 1/2% based on a standard American income of $40,000/year) -- are guilty of a serious crime and need to be jailed.

As Steve and others note, America and the West currently seem to have a stunningly irrational and foolish immigration policy: one based upon self-hatred and self-destruction.

Marotta's comments aren't rational.  They strike me as a product of bitter anger.  Instead of answering any of the questions raised in this thread, they display the favorite tactic of the progressives: demonize your opponents.

Kyrel,

At the top of the discussion you implied that the vast majority of Muslims support physical aggression.  Michael and I disagree.

How many of those who contributed to the Holy Land Foundation knew that it was supporting terrorism?

If an organization says it is funding the spread of Objectivist ideas and legitimate Objectivism-based projects, and is actually doing a little of that, and I believe them and contribute, whether stingily or generously, and it then turns out that they are helping people who blow up government office buildings, mosques, churches, and synagogues and/or murder policemen, Muslims, alt rightists, and Anti-Fa aggressors, am I guilty of a crime?

Hi Doug,

You were replying to Kyrel, and you wrote:

Nobody should be kicked or kept out unless convicted of an actual felony.

Actually, if the person is not here legally, or is here legally, but only on a visa, they don't have any right to remain.  They can be deported without a felony conviction.  Also, anyone who has neither a green card nor citizenship has no legal right to enter the country. They can be kept out.  Gaining citizenship or a green card represents the granting of certain civil rights (being able to enter the country, being able to vote, etc.)

Creating the laws that govern both immigration and visas is up to the Congress - who speaks, in theory, for the citizens who are the owners-in-common of all public spaces and public property.  Execution of the laws, (and determinations that are required for national security - when there is a nation threat) is up to the Executive branch.

Steve,

Congress has passed all sorts of laws, among them the antitrust laws, assorted subsidies, and laws criminalizing marijuana use.  Many of these laws are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.

Laws restricting people's freedom of movement (as long as they aren't trespassing on private property) or their ability to remain in a country are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.  Some exceptions for convicted felons might be OK, but not for anyone else. 

Doug, you wrote:

Congress has passed all sorts of laws, among them the antitrust laws, assorted subsidies, and laws criminalizing marijuana use.  Many of these laws are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.

That is very true.  We agree completely on that.  There are a huge number of bad laws.

But it doesn't mean that laws which define acts that violate individual rights, such as laws regarding murder, robbery, extortion, and fraud should be repealed. Would I be wrong to assume you agree with that?

----------------

Laws restricting people's freedom of movement (as long as they aren't trespassing on private property) or their ability to remain in a country are wrong, should never have been enacted, and should be repealed.  Some exceptions for convicted felons might be OK, but not for anyone else. 

 

There are serious problems with that statement.  First, since you are saying that people should be able to enter the country - and should not be restricted, you are talking about human rights... not rights granted by law (such as a right to vote, or a right to run for president, etc.)  But if people, born outside the country, residing outside the country, and having no American citizenship or a green card have an individual right to enter our country, then where does the government get off saying they have to stop everyone at the border to check that they are not convicted felons?  We don't allow stops on the streets to verify non-felony status.  And do we treat the list of felonies of foriegn nations as identical to ours?  Look... if every human being has the right to enter our country, then we have no borders.  You have to go all the way, or not at all.  

---------------

I've explained, in great detail, in other threads, why the citizens of our country are the owners (owners-in-common) of all public spaces and public buildings and the political and legal structures.  Just as the stockholders in a corportation are the owners of that corporation.  Their ownership rights are limited and the same is true regarding what a citizen can do.  The corporation is run for the stockholders by the board and its selected top officers.  The public property we citizens own is managed by government which we have limited control over (voting).  That concept of property rights - in the nation, by its citizens - is a key part of the foundation of representative government - of a republic.  We have a border for the same reason that all property is limited.  What is owned is finite and specific.  When someone steps over the border (legally) they come under an entire set of laws shaped by a unique history.  That set of laws, that history, for a given nation can make it a very desirable place to be or a place people would pay money and risk death to get out of.  That huge difference between value and disvalue is also a kind of property.  No one has the legal or moral right to come into my house without my permission.  No one has the moral or legal right to enter our country without requesting permission (e.g., a visa).

-----------------

Some libertarians and most anarchists believe that no one - including the government - has a right to stop someone from entering our country: open borders.  They are wrong.  They talk about freedom of movement.  But freedom is freedom from force.  That is a condition that requires the machinery of  good government operations under to good laws to create that freedom.  Freedom doesn't grow on trees.  It is the outcome of that good government taking the initiation of force out of the marketplace.  You can choose to do whatever you want, as long as it does not include the initiation of force.  Trespass is a form of initiated force.  It is a violation of property rights.  It applies to a person's house, to a corporations property, and to all of the properties managed by our government.  It certainly applies to the border.