Take a look at this Justice Department release- regarding a 21-year old Kansas resident named John T. Booker, who was in the process of enlisting in the U.S. army to support ISIS with an attack from the inside. His plan to detonate a bomb at an Army post was thwarted, and a terrorist attack averted. Right here in the U.S. An American. A Muslim.
Why did most media outlets not report on this story? I couldn’t find it on the Fox News website. It was reported on CNN and CBS, but not given “front page” status. I found it on page 7 of the Los Angeles Times, a 3-paragraph tidbit under “National Briefing”. It was not reported because the story does not fit the media and political agenda- had Booker been an immigrant, there would have been something to wave flags and rant about. Keep the Muslims out. Now it’s about freedom of religion (and potentially mental health) and no-one wants to touch on those issues.
Does the very topic- U.S. citizens supporting ISIS out of faith in Islam- hold a key to dealing with the problem? Does this support the need for DeJihadification of Islam, as described in my earlier post? Can or should the United States participate in the censorship of religion? Incitement to violence is an exception to the rights of the First Amendment. Censorship goes against everything we stand for, and government censorship of the Quran would be a tough sell. So what can we do? Can we put a terrorist tax on the Quran and any other books that advocate violence? Can we pressure religious leaders in conjunction with publishers to only sell the Quran in the U.S. with an annotated or amended version outlawing its illegal provisions calling Muslims to jihad? This article is not intended to be controversial, but is intended to be thought provoking. What are your ideas? Please don’t let the party or media agenda stop us from protecting our country and working on solutions rather than useless rhetoric or hateful grandstanding. #SpeakUp
POLITICAL RAVINGS 
Somehow I missed this post and this question. i think this comes down to my concern with Islam in general. How do we know what is peaceful and what is not? It seems that more and more people are buying into the radical, jihadist idea of Islam. If that is really the case, then at what point does the religion itself become a terrorist organization? How do we protect against only “some” of the Muslims? There have been numerous polls that show that many “moderate” Muslims support the idea of global Sharia law and global Jihad, even if they are not willing to take part to make that happen. If that is the case, then is Islam really a religion of peace or do we have to treat it as we treat Al-Qeada and other terrorist organizations? How do we allow an organization that espouses the destruction of our very society and way of life to exist? Are we not entitled to demand that it not exist within our borders if it desires to destroy us?
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution. As to your last question, no, I do not believe we are entitled to wipe out a religion peacefully followed by U.S. citizens here. The studies conducted in regard to percentages of Muslims that believe in jihad or support ISIS are very small in any but the obvious strongholds, primarily Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, I have heard the argument that even though those percentages may be less than 1% it still adds up to a great many Muslims.
Consider this: studies have shown that a minimum of 5% of Catholic priests have engaged, not just believe in, but have actually committed rape or abuse of children. Where are the outcries to expel the Catholic religion from within our borders? Where are those saying that it’s not worth the risk to let a Catholic priest into yours or your childs’ lives? These percentages are higher than those of terrorist Muslims. (By the way, there is indication that the same percentage of child molestation goes across religious lines, and is attributed to all priests, but that since Catholics tend to have more schools and programs for children, the numbers are far higher despite the statistical approach- same argument as to how many terrorists exist even though it is less than 1%.
This is something to consider. When do we make the assumption against all men? As they said in WW II, “When they took the Jews, I said nothing, for I was not a Jew. When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing, for I was not a homosexual… When they came for me, no-one was left to speak for me.”
LikeLike
I find your comparison inaccurate. It is easy for me to exclude Catholic priests from my life and to prevent them from having access to my child. I cannot prevent Muslims from creating mass death through terrorism by merely excluding them from my life. Just not allowing them access to my son will not prevent them from killing or maiming my son, myself or my family. Only by completely excluding the entire sect of death can I protect myself. It is very different
LikeLike