Doug, you wrote:
The battle against Islam, Christianity, and the like must be fought in the realm of ideas, not by force.
Ideas are fought with ideas. Actions that violate rights are fought with force. We agree on that and I've never advocated otherwise. But if you have a declared enemy who has initiated force against you, and is continuing to act forcefully against you, those whose actions support that enemy are also acting against you. In WWII we declared war on enemy nations because they initiated force against us and we treated those who acted in support of those enemies in the same way. That is what I advocate we do now. For example, if someone sent money to ISIS, they should be jailed (with the proper laws in place, of course).
I oppose Islam as bad ideas and don't advocate taking forceful actions against muslims just because they are muslims. I do advocate a kind of declaration of war against those specific Islamic organizations that continue to attack us. Then, to take actions against those who act to support those organizations - not just the actual members of the organizations, and certainly not just those members who have taken an action and been tried and convicted.
I am reacting to Kyrel's implication that the vast majority of American Muslims deserve to be arrested, jailed, executed, or deported, and to your failure to distance yourself from this position.
I believe you are misunderstanding his position. His position was that a majority of American Muslims supported the use of forceful Jihad and placed Sharia above the constitution. I would agree that, if we had the proper declaration of war in place, then it would be appropriate to take actions against those who took actions to support forceful jihad and sharia.
Here is an example of the difference that I don't think you are seeing. Slavery is illegal. Someone has the right to stand on a street corner and express a belief that slavery should be made legal - that is just an expression of vile ideas. But if they take an action to implement slavery, or take an action to support someone in violating the laws against slavery, they should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. I am making that distinction between actions and ideas. I'm not sure that you are. You see the idea part okay, but you don't seem to see active support of those taking action on behalf of the ideas as something that needs to be addressed.
During WWII it would have made no sense to limit our government's actions to those individual German, Japanese, Italian soldiers who could be shown to have initiated force against an American. That would be silly. The same thing is true today with organizations like ISIS.
Do you believe that during WWII it would have been alright for someone to have sent money to a Nazi organization in Germany? Or for a person to have sent shipping information to target convoys? Those are things that would have been legal before a declaration of war, but not after. The declaration of war, if it meets the proper moral and legal standards, is how a nation acts to defend itself against a known enemy.