re: #100 zombie

True.

We have freedom of religion in this country, and that includes Islam and any sort of group, such as Scientology, The Branch Davidians, you name it. All religions are legal in the US.

We may not necessarily like these religions, and may have no intention of joining, but according to Constitution, we must allow them, however distasteful we may find some of them.

The difficult part is that some religions advocate — as part of their religious doctrine — principles or practices that are in violation of US law. Some Mormon breakaway sects, for example, allow and advocate child marriage and polygamy. Some cults like Scientology deny civil rights to apostates. Etc.

If there are any aspects to Islam which contravene US law, then those aspect must be disallowed on our shores. For example: Sharia is illegal under constitutional principles, because it establishes different legal systems for different citizens, which the Supreme Court has long ago already ruled unconstitutional.

But what do we do when some Islamic scholars say (which they do) that sharia as a legal system is indistinguishable from Islam as a religion? Puts us in a very sticky situation.

We need to allow the practice of a religion, but not allow the violation of US law by members of that religion. Hence, we raid Mormon sect compounds where men are marrying eight 12-year-olds simultaneously; we arrest any Scientologists who are harrassing apostates; and we prevent sharia from being implemented as a separate legal system.

In each instance however, the hardcore members of those religions feel we ARE violating their right to Freedom of Religion.

How do we resolve this dilemma?

I don’t see any dilemma. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the context of freedom of conscience and expression, all embedded in the First Amendment. They represent negative rights, the fulfillment of which requires no active involvement by the government or society at large — merely a commitment to non-interference with the expression or practice, be it religious, artistic, literary, etc.

Someone’s negative rights end where someone else’s begin. We need not study cohorts of Muslims in order to determine the percentage of hard-liners among them, so we may monitor them or analyze the dictates of their fundamentalist beliefs. They are free to believe and express anything they want — whether it flies in the face of the Constitution or not. They are not, however, free to act on their radical prescriptions without immunity from the law. That’s why the KKK is not banned in the U.S., neither is Holocaust Denial, or the promulgation of any other hateful and disgusting ideology. So long as people don’t act on ideas that violate others’ rights, they can spew hot air all they want.

Banned trolls on LGF can and do rant about Charles suppressing their freedom of speech, but he is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to accommodate them on his virtual property. There is no dilemma to be resolved. They remain banned, and they are free to bitch about it — a freedom they are keen on exercising. Charles remains the owner and proprietor of LGF, with sole authority over what happens at his site.

Let Islamist hardliners who would want Sharia to rule this country bitch about their freedom of religion being trampled on. But that freedom legally ended the moment it sought to restrict others’ freedoms (of fair trial, of their religion, of gender equality in front of the law, etc.). No controversy there…