They Are Bad. Now What?
From a redneck with a Styrofoam cup to the fine crystal and linen napkin crowd, the verdict is in. Muslims are bad and we must fear them. We must fear them to the same extent the Germans feared the Jews. We must hate them with a fever. We must destroy them before they destroy us.
This is the message I get from respected friends and talk show hucksters. It is consistent in its enthusiasm and also its shallowness.
I’ve actually known a Muslim and he missed his chance. There he sat. He even had a knife. I bet he was killed as soon as his comrades found out he could have killed me and didn’t.
For the good of the western world, this needs to be sorted out. I totally understand the animosity directed toward a religion that has the moral standards Muslims are universally known for. So far, nobody has shown that the Koran does not direct devout Muslims to eliminate non-believers. It is a grave problem.
But in all the rhetoric of those who seem to believe nobody is listening to their warnings on Islam, I have yet to hear what they propose to do about it. Secretary Henry Kissinger said last Tuesday, “We have to know the objective at the start and develop a strategy to achieve it.” What is it, Henry? It is time for the next step. Past time.
We don’t like what we see in Europe; no-go zones where police fear to tread and Sharia Law is in effect already. We who prefer the old English Common Law feel powerless to stop the onslaught of Sharia. We see the government chasing dope addicts, financing Tesla Motors, getting involved in civil wars halfway around the world and generally throwing a monkey wrench into every entrepreneurial endeavor that actually betters our world, while these lunatics see a border ripe for invasion.
No-go zones already exist here in the USA. Drug cartels run whole neighborhoods because our justice system has been so diluted with nanny-ism, trying to engineer society rather than simply protecting the decent people from the bad ones.
All the awful things we hear that the Islamists are doing are illegal here, and rightfully so. They have victims and we have law to deal with them. But when law has been used to restrict unpopular yet harmless behavior, when law is used to punish those who compete with political contributors or promote any business, when it replaces charity, when it replaces family; it has already crossed the line.
That line is where the principle of law to protect individuals has evolved to a point where it does anything at all beyond that. The law is now subject to “interpretation.” It is now vulnerable to the whims of the mob. We now have a democracy. To complain about Muslims influencing our laws might feel good and righteous, but we brought it on ourselves. Democracy makes the law subject to the majority instead of a tool to ensure individual rights. We don’t have to look very far to see where the majority can be wrong.
There is no longer a standard of individual sovereignty when we accept being forced to buy someone else’s groceries, medical care or schooling. The purpose of government has been forgotten when it is protecting foreign governments, sending our president on million dollar vacations and even exploring Mars. The traditional role of law is to step in when society’s standards are violated. The United States is already in a tenuous position as a singular society, as evidenced by the repeated term, “multiculturalism.” That means the law is unenforceable, spread too thinly in an attempt to enforce the terms of too many cultures.
When I hear this constant drumbeat that Muslims are bad, without any direction given to deal with it, I have to think that these obviously intelligent people are avoiding the next step for a reason. If a system of government that only protects individual rights is not enough to deal with religious violence, is it because the perpetrators of unlimited government benefit from that unlimited government to such an extent that they ignore the obvious solution in order to preserve their plunder?
What do these people who view themselves as an exclusive clique of enlightened ones have to gain from their incessant blabber that we are at war, rather than in a law enforcement crisis?
If we were really going to guard against the installation of Sharia Law we would simply enforce the laws we already have that contradict Sharia Law. In order to do that we would need the resources available upon elimination of the state as family. We would need to allow for uncompromised private property rights. For example, we would have to return air travel to a totally private business that has the right to defend itself and choose who their customers are.
As long as the precedent has been set that law can violate our rights, as it does today, we are vulnerable to the installation of Sharia Law. If we don’t want that (I don’t), then we should start by eliminating the precedents that empower the courts with such liberal interpretations of the law.
As for the tough talkers, there is nothing preventing them from conducting their own war. They can buy their own Styrofoam cups, linen napkins and fine crystal too. War should be declared by Congress before the rest of us get involved.