Yes, We Can.

... and we must

Recently I posted an article denying that islam is in any way compatible with civilization. Many have noted that the First Amendment protects it, and that “we cannot, by law, prevent anyone from personally practicing that which they call ‘religion.’”

I disagree.

We forced Utah (Mormons) to outlaw bigamy when they petitioned to become a state. We don’t provide formal recognition to wiccans and other cult-like “religions.” The West v islam is very much a zero-sum contest; we cannot coexist, and the most intolerant side WILL win – history shows that it always does.

Whether we can allow islam – even minus bigamy, misogyny, slavery, pedophilia, etc., to exist within the West is up to us – not up to muslims. ALL of these are illegal across Western Civilization and ALL of them are given sanction by islam.

Accepting islam, crediting it as a “religion,” and giving it the protections only found in the civilization islam demands to conquer and destroy, when it fits no definition of that Western word and concept of a theology based on peace – not on killing every human being on the planet not worshiping their death cult savagery... means accepting these barbaric behaviors.

NO!

I am not willing to allow adult men to “marry” nine-year-old girls just because some medieval death-cult practitioner demands it, nor should ANY civilized person. Nor am I willing to allow muslims to rape our – “infidel” – women and girls because it is allowed in their barbaric cult. Nor am I willing to allow slavery – we fought our bloodiest war to end that inhumane practice - to rise again in the West, a practice islam supports and for which they still hold open-market slave auctions in countries they have already conquered – do you really think they won’t revive slavery here once they have “entere[d] every home?”

Nor am I ready to accept school menus and restaurant menus and backyard barbecues and pets being dictated by medieval authoritarians. Nor am I interested in allowing men to stone women to death for adultery, to forcibly rape the sister of a rape victim for the “sin” of her sister having been raped, thereby “bringing dishonor on her family,” nor to hang someone for being gay, nor to allow the beating and whipping of a woman for disobeying her husband.

Nor am I interested in having muslims audibly pollute OUR public spaces with their invasive loudspeaker-driven anti-Western death-cult ideology blasted across the commons five times a day – or even once.

Nor am I interested in these barbarians blocking traffic and commerce – something illegal in their own countries – by prostrating themselves on OUR streets to demonstrate that they are in the process of conquering us and our laws don’t apply to them. If you’re in our country, our laws apply – not yours.

It [blocking traffic] is a well studied act of religious propaganda!

But the scandal is not so much the attitude of the men in prayer. It is the reaction of the municipal police and the city. The street belongs to everyone, and nobody has the right to monopolize it, even for a quarter of an hour, without authorization. No matter what the reason: the procession of the Blessed Sacrament or prayer, political, social, sporting or any other kind of demonstration. The street belongs to everyone and can not be monopolized by anyone without prior authorization.

Beyond the fact that there is a question of principle. The law is above everything and everyone, even above religion. In this case, Muslims are not obliged to say their prayers immediately and on the street. The vast majority of observant Muslims, in Muslim countries, wait until they are home to pray. Furthermore, the Islamic Sharia authorizes the faithful to combine two prayers when the need requires it. So such behaviour cannot be justified by religious obligation. Anyway, it could not be used as an excuse! It is purely an act of propaganda and proselytizing.

NO civilized person can accept these abuses, yet islam DEMANDS them. Demanding that WE accept these practices within a civilization WE define is irrational. It is the action of an enemy alien to our culture and civilization, laws, traditions, customs and practices. These are the demands of a conqueror.

THEIR demand for medieval practices does not place on us a requirement to accept barbarism that we left behind well over a millennium ago.

The idea we cannot – in our own nation and civilization - prevent these barbaric practices simply because they call their barbarism “religion” is ahistorical, anti-civilizational, anti-female, anti-child, pro-slavery nonsense. These practices are ILLEGAL here and WE get to decide our laws and customs, not interlopers/invaders.

As for relying on the First Amendment to say we cannot prohibit abuses of human rights, not only the above reference to Mormons, but the West is BUILT on the Human Rights that Islam rejects. No coexistence is possible, nor should it be desired. Yes, I am aware that references to the evil of the Ages – NAZIs – is overdone today. But the fact is this: not even NAZIs were as barbaric as muslim practices, and we annihilated the NAZIs.

And, please don’t get me started on “radical,” “extremist” and “moderate” islam. No such things exist. There is only islam. Even the far-left rag The Atlantic acknowledges this. What we in the West see as the most potent, virulent form of islam – ISIS – is, in the words of The Atlantic,

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Not “Extreme.” Not “Radical.” Certainly not “moderate.” … but “coherent and learned.”

The idea the West can not only allow, but objectively encourage, the entrance of islam and its horrors and brutality into the civilized world just because its practitioners use our concept of religious freedom - a concept they violently reject - against us…. is objectively insane.

But – what of “Freedom of religion?”

“The Constitution is not a suicide pact“ is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.

The “need for the survival of the state and its people” outweighs the barbarism this medieval death cult demands. The American state cannot recognizably survive by overturning the protections the West places on Human Rights, which is exactly what islam demands of us.

Civilization v. islam is a zero-sum contest. Only one side of this contest recognizes and protects human rights; the other abuses them to the point of barbarous murder and rape. Only one will win this civilizational contest

The most intolerant always win. We had better become more intolerant of these savages than they are of us, and we had better start right now… or human rights will be destroyed, along with the freedom, liberty, prosperity and the progress of Western Civilization.