Conundrum

When you live in a country which holds freedom of religion as one of its founding principles, what do you do about adherents to a religion whose founder exhorted the faithful to impose that religion on others at the point of a sword?

Or at the muzzle of a gun?

Or at the flashpoint of a weapon of mass destruction?

Answer: when their freedom of religion threatens your country's survival, you do what you have to do to make sure the country survives. 

We're not there--yet.  But some people want us there.  And I believe that one of them sits in the Oval Office.

UPDATE:  Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter, tried to contact al Qaeda months ago and the FBI knew about it.  Hasan also attended the same mosque and at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers.

I suppose that it is mere coincidence that this mosque, Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, nurtured jihad so fervent in at least three of its congregants, that they felt compelled to produce such high body counts for Allah.

(Thanks to Stacy McCain and Hot Air)

Comments

[T-Steel]

You really believe that President Obama wants us "there"? I CAN believe that his naivete would edge us closer. But actually wanting the USA to be at the brink? I just don't see it.

[baldilocks]

I do. Chaos would create an opportunity to deploy his nat'l police force.

[Kwongdzu]

I agree, Juliette, but I think he's pushing for it in more ways than one.

A failing economy breeds tension - that's one trigger. As Rush Limbaugh has said repeatedly, Obama seems to be deliberately sabotaging the US economy at every opportunity he gets.

Health care is an issue most people feel very strongly about - stir up a stink there and you might trigger a civil riot.

He continues to fan the flames of racial and class discord through his divisive speeches and choice of priorities. That speech he gave at the breaking news of the Ft. Hood incident was nothing less than jaw dropping. And not in a good way. The man is either insane or has a very evil agenda. Or both.

[Buford Gooch]

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel

[T-Steel]

I don't get it Juliette. What national police force? Where is he assembling this? So President Obama plan is to destabilize the country so he can deploy a "national police force" to lock down everyone. Basically you calling President Obama the first American Dictator. Am I correct?

You've lost me big time, Juliette. Really lost me.

[skylights]

I agree with you that Obama will do what we have to do to make sure the country survives, but I'm sure he doesn't share your belief that most/all Muslims want to impose their religion on us through violence or the threat of violence.

Mohammad's exhortations notwithstanding, most US Muslims don't believe in forcibly converting non-adherents. According to a 2007 Pew Research Center survey, only 33% of American Muslims believe that Islam is the one, true faith leading to eternal life, and even then, a full 60% believe there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of Islam. 63% do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. 78% of US Muslims say they are "very happy" or "pretty happy," and an equal percentage say that the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies is never justified.

Certainly we should be concerned about the small percentage that believes in violence or forced conversion, but this does not justify fear or suspicion of all Muslims.

What you wrote in this blog post is disturbing. Its meaning becomes clearer when we tighten the language.

"What do you do about adherents to a religion whose freedom of religion threatens your country's survival? You do what you have to do."

It sounds like you're suggesting that Muslims' freedom of religion should be taken away, or that they should be forcibly converted, or, darkest of all, that they should be exterminated. I sure hope that's not what you're saying.

[baldilocks]

I'm suggesting that a route through the conundrum be considered. If I were suggesting curtailment of freedom, I wouldn't suggest it; I would say it straight out.

I don't play passive-aggressive games.

[baldilocks]

T-Steel: You are correct. The evidence is all there, hundreds of pieces of evidence and if you haven't heard him talking about a civilian national paramilitary force, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

The question remains: what to do about it before it gains teeth? There are lots of legal remedies but the time to wake up is yesterday.

[T-Steel]

I agree that a route through the conundrum be considered. It's one thing to say that and work through it, but another to say that the POTUS wants chaos to start a National Police Force. Look Juliette, I respect the heck out of you. But respectfully, you sound "out there" with that police comment.

[T-Steel]

OOPS. Wrote my comment while you were responding.

OK... I'm going to leave this alone simply because I can't get my head around what you are suggesting. Yes I read about the civilian defense force. But it's a big leap to go from proposed civilian defense force to "purposeful chaos" that requires "Obama's National Police Force". That's all I'm saying.

[baldilocks]

Yeah okay. People asked me what I was smoking last year when I said that he was a Marxist. Now a goodly portion of the economy is on its way to being nationalized.

The evidence is all there out in the open. He is who he said he was.

I do have some training in analysis. Perhaps I walk y'all through it. Perhaps not.

[T-Steel]

Well, I don't doubt your analytical aptitude. But we are talking about the POTUS. Congress is full of it but that's a lot of bodies to get in line. And in order for Obama to pull what you suggest off, it's going to take much work and coordination. It will take more than an act of terrorism at Ft. Hood to get us to the brink. A lot more with a lot more frequency.

[baldilocks]

In my analysis, I might use the N-word. No, the other one.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1322946243]

Radical Islam is not a religion. It is a political movement disguised as a religion.

Socialism is not a political movement. It is a religion disguised as a political movement.