Nobody has taken me to task for the apparent contradiction between my libertarianism on one hand (which presumably supports freedom of speech) and my condemnation of Islam as a menace to our society on the other. I’m a bit disappointed because I enjoy being challenged and don’t mind being proven wrong. As it stands, I believe I am right and I shall presently explain.
A person can believe anything he wants and his belief is meaningless to the outside world until he either speaks it or acts upon it. Therefore, as far as we’re concerned, freedom of religion is the same as freedom of speech. The writers of the U.S. Constitution clearly saw it this way, as they included both freedom of religion and freedom of speech in one amendment: the first.
Anybody who professes Islam is both exercising his freedom of religion and his freedom of speech. So, by suggesting that Europe rid itself of its Muslims, am I not suggesting that they curtail freedom of speech? Yes, I am and, as Curt Doolittle already wrote, “This isn’t a moral question. It’s a practical one.” But I wanted to expound upon this. A person could stand on a corner all day long and say “there is no god except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet.” He might be singing it as a song to entertain or perhaps it is part of a college project (you never know these days), or he might be doing it on a dare. Or he might be a Muslim. In the former cases, it is freedom of speech. In the latter case, it is also freedom of association.
Perhaps here I part ways with the authors of the Constitution but, while a nation should allow an individual to say what he will, at the same time, it must pay close attention to what he is. It is not what people say that defines a nation; it is what they are.
I can think of two groups of people that it is dangerous to anger and doing so is likely to cost one’s life: Muslims and drug cartels. If individuals, living in the U.S., profess their membership in a drug cartel, we would do well to remove them from our land. The government is expected to do so even if the individuals in question have done nothing specifically illegal other than membership in such a group. Both Muslims and drug cartels threaten freedom of speech in areas that they dominate. It is likely that the cartels were inspired by Muslims in their use of violence and mutilation to stifle dissent.
Am I being unfair to compare Muslims to drug cartels? Perhaps. I have already pointed out that there are good people who call themselves “Muslim” and it is obvious that one cannot lump all Muslims together. And yet any land that becomes home to large numbers of Muslims is transformed in ways most of us find disagreeable. Any nation, that allows itself to be inhabited by more than a few Muslims, will find its indigenous population strangers in its own land.
The authors of the Constitution listed freedom of religion and freedom of speech as the “First Amendment” because, without it, all other rights are sure to be lost. But there is another “First Amendment” that is so primary and so basic that the founding fathers felt no need to even list it: the right to have a nation. Without a nation, there can be no Constitution and our rights have no home. They wither away.
The nations of Europe cannot retain their various identities if they are dominated by Muslims. The U.S. cannot retain its identity if it is dominated by Mexicans. Europeans and Americans have the right to keep their nations. Not just a right, but a duty; they owe it to their children.
Things are not so rosy these days in America but, in terms of freedom of speech, we have never had it so good as the last couple of generations. It was not that long ago that Americans were being arrested for sedition and that antiwar protesters were routinely thrown in jail. It is ironic that the same open-mindedness that has given us such liberty has also grown malignant in the minds of fools and convinced them that all people are the same as us. Thus, in their folly, they have invited the Mexican hordes and, under their wings like so many bedbugs, the cartels find their way here. I fear that this era of freedom is near its end. Once the enemy is among us, attending our schools, living in our neighborhoods, attending our churches and caring for our sick and elderly, then more distinctions must be made as far as what can be said and what cannot. We wouldn’t want to offend them, now would we? We wouldn’t want to anger them; it could be dangerous you know. Somebody might get hurt.