I was going to wait until next week for part 3 but this was to much. The following bill was introduced in Congress this week: H.R. 6975, To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes. It would also require the deportation on any alien currently residing in the US who advocates installing a Sharia law system.
The bill is called The Jihad Prevention Act and was introduced by Representative Thomas Tancredo, a Republican from Littleton, CO.
I found this on The Washington Watch.com blog - pretty much a blog that does exactly what its name suggests! People can vote on bills which is kind of interesting because you get an idea of public opinion. The vote on this particular bill was 40% in favor, 60% opposed.
Here is another blog I found called The Rick Honcho & Dr. Katie Show. If you'd like a clear, unbiased view of the bill (that is sarcasm folks) check them out. Actually this is a pretty horrendous blog but I just had to include it because I was so astonished. Check out the Flag of Islam over White House post.
Now that I've introduced this, I'll give you a few random thoughts from my slightly odd brain. First of all if you were really coming to the US to install a Sharia law system are you going to be so stupid as to admit it when immigration asks you? I kind of think not. Secondly, I was under the impression this was a country where you were allowed to have differing opinions. Apparently that doesn't apply to immigrants? So if you are in the US on a visa you have to support everything that the government says? Now suppose that I, an "official" American citizen want to install a Sharia law system. Is that ok?
Admittedly I'm probably asking kind of stupid questions. This just brings up something that I really feel very strongly about though. This is one world - random divisions of countries are stupid. Throughout history how many wars have been fought over land and nationalist fervor (thanks for the phrase Jill)? I think that people should be allowed to live wherever they want and believe whatever they want. I'm opposed to immigration restrictions and stupid laws that ask asinine questions.
I'd tell you more stuff that I believe but it is probably naive, idealistic and would be impossible to implement. To give you a hint though! -- in my world there would be no war or money or poverty. Now admittedly this would probably require a change in human nature that isn't going to happen. My plan to deal with anyone who disagrees with me (did I mention I favor an absolute monarchy with me as queen?) is to put them on a rocketship & send them to Mars. Then if they come back they would be aliens wouldn't they!!
I realize I'm being a little silly, but I think spending time and money - your money and mine by the way - debating this kind of stuff in Congress when there are so many really important issues that should be dealt with is irresponsible.
Robin, the lonely blog mistress
9 comments:
Very interesting and insightful posting. I like the world that you envision, though I'm a little concerned about the monarch we're putting on the throne. I may have annoyed her in the past and I'm not sure what the repercussions may be.
As to the comment from muslims against sharia, you say that you praise Congressman Tancredo's initiative (thankfully you stopped short of praising Congressman Tancredo himself) and that you have advocated in the past for a "Gihad Prevention Act." Now the original post admitted some naive notions on her part, but a "Gihad Prevention Act" outdoes anything I've seen before. Legislating against a jihad is like legislating against tornadoes. If there was even the slightest possibility of a jihad in this country, do you really think that a law against it would be effective? I mean do you think that people who don't hesitate to blow themselves up amongst crowds of strangers are going to stop and reconsider that act because they might end up with five years in prison and a $5,000 fine? Do we really think any revolutionary act in the past was halted because the likely perpetrator thought, "Wow, if I toss this bomb into that square they might depot me." Not likely.
Legislation of this nature (even debate of this nature, and, yes, these comments included) is undertaken simply to make a political point, not to achieve real change or improve the lot of any single individual. You, my muslims against sharia friend who did not have the courage to use your real name (fear of getting deported?), are writing simply to show yourself and your friends how clever you are and how deeply and fervently you believe in things. Surely can find a better use for your time. I know that I can.
"thankfully you stopped short of praising Congressman Tancredo himself"
We certainly didn't mean to. We wholeheartedly praise Tom Tancredo. You obviously have no clue about the magnitude and nature of the Islamist threat and this is not the forum to educate you on the subject.
"Legislating against a jihad is like legislating against tornadoes."
That is one of the most idiotic statements we've read. Gihad and Sharia go hand-in-hand. By reducing the number of Sharia proponents you reduce the probability of Gihadi incidents.
We? Who is we my friend? And why is this not the forum to educate about the magnitude of the Islamist threat. Presumably you wrote your original comment because you felt the need to spread some sort of message. Why stop now?
If my statement about tornadoes is one of the most idiotic statements you've ever read, you really should spend a bit more time reading and a bit less writing, as there is much more out there that is idiotic. For example, here are few from your much-admired Mr. Tancredo:
"I spend a lot of time in Iowa, and believe it or not, in Ottumwa, Iowa, this is the heartland, the newspaper, the regular newspaper for Ottumwa, Iowa, is (a) bilingual newspaper." -- Easily proven wrong.
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”
You seem a reasonable group of people (how many of you are there, by the way?), so I can't imagine that you would think that if the United States bombed Islamic Holy Sites that it would deter terrorists in this country or any other country. In fact, I would think that since you are muslims yourselves, you would generally be against anybody bombing Mecca. But maybe I'm wrong.
Assuming that you are correct about finding a more idiotic statement, congratulations! We're sure it wasn't easy.
If you want to be educated about the threat of radical Islam, you are welcome to visit out site and our blog. American members of MASH consider themselves American first. If the threat of annihilating Islamic holy sites would prevent annihilating American cities, we're all for it.
It was actually quite easy to find the statements. There are entire buildings full of people making them (legislatures, churches, grocery stores, city halls, lecture halls).
I did visit your website, and found some very interesting, thoughtful and valuable information there. Thanks for the suggestion.
I am saddened that you think annihilation of any kind could ever lead to anything positive. Even the threat of annihilation cannot lead to anything positive, I'm quite certain of that, and a quick tour of history should convince all but the most narrow minded. Annihilation and the threat of it leads to only one thing, and based on what I've read on your site, that's the one thing you seem to not want. I'm surprised by your last statement.
"I am saddened that you think annihilation of any kind could ever lead to anything positive."
Consider radiation therapy for cancer patients. It annihilates cancer, so patient could live. If it doesn't patient dies. Radical Islam is humanity's cancer. If it is not annihilated, civilization will be destroyed, and moderate Muslims will be the first to go.
"Even the threat of annihilation cannot lead to anything positive, I'm quite certain of that, and a quick tour of history should convince all but the most narrow minded."
I guess your "quick tour of history" did not include MAD doctrine which worked out pretty well.
That's a nice analogy, and if people were cells it would actually make sense. We're not. People are people. Cells can be eradicated to preserve the life of an animal with no moral or ethical dilemma. In my view of the world, that is not the case.
I suggested a brief tour for you, as I was fairly certain that your attention span would not permit anything more. A threat works only if the threatening party is willing to follow through. Are you willing to follow through? Are you willing to destroy another group because of their beliefs to assure your existence? If so, how are you different from the group that you refer to as a cancer? Is that not precisely what they want to do?
I personally don't hold in very high esteem the practice of religion of any kind in this world, and yours is no exception. But advocating destruction (as you clearly do) in the name of peace is simply a lie. I am clearly no scholar of the Quran, but I do believe there are words along the lines of incurring god's condemnation for lying. Or did you miss that part? Or is this not really your religion. Who exactly are you MAS?
I'm signing off for good now. At first I thought perhaps you were actually interested in an exchange of information and ideas, I see now that is not the case.
You are the car bomber with delusions of self-righteous glory. You are the hijacker crashing the plane. You are the cowardly assassin perched in the window. I weep for your children and the future you would deny them.
"In my view of the world, that is not the case."
In your view? The view that's based on movies, news clips and soundbites? Have you spent a day in a Sharia-run country?
"Are you willing to follow through?"
I certainly am.
"Are you willing to destroy another group because of their beliefs to assure your existence?"
If that belief includes murdering me and my family, absolutely.
"If so, how are you different from the group that you refer to as a cancer? Is that not precisely what they want to do?"
You seem to be too stupid to understand the difference between murder and self-defense.
"But advocating destruction (as you clearly do) in the name of peace is simply a lie."
You seem to be too stupid to understand even such simple concepts concepts as self preservation, so I won't presume that you are able to understand the concept of right and wrong.
"I am clearly no scholar of the Quran"
Or anything else for that matter. As I might have mentioned before, this is not the forum to educate morons. Some people are just too dumb or unwilling to accept the reality. Have a good life.
Well I can't resist one last comment. Name calling is generally the last resort of those who have run out of intellectual fuel. I expected better from you.
Thank you for your well wishes. I have and will continue to have a good life, truly. And it will be one that does not involve murder, threats of murder or wishing such on others. I hope that yours will be the same.
Post a Comment