More Holy Crap

I received a comment from someone named Menachem, whom I hope is not just being contentious, but is instead curious, or simply naive, or just too young to understand the ramifications of Rep. John Conyers proposed resolution that I describe in my post below entitled Holy Crap, and because I am incensed over this resolution, I decided to post my reply here, instead of in the comment window.

To recap, US Representative John Conyers, Jr., a Detroit Democrat, has taken a first tentative step toward a blasphemy law in the United States: Text of My Resolution Regarding Relgious [sic] Intolerance. My outrage, and the hundreds of other comments left by other posters on LGF, and on Conyers' own blog, are united by our resentment that the main focus of this resolution is just on the "holy" Koran.

Menachem responded to my original post with:

i don't see what the problem with this law is. how is it any different than laws calling synagogue defacing a hate crime? it doesnt establish a state religion at all, merely protects existing practicioners.

Here is why I am outraged, Menachem:

The resolution appears like it refers to all religions but the detailed language shows only sensitivity to Islam as well as the mention of 7 million Muslims in the US, rather than the actual 1 to 2 million. However, even assuming the 7 million number is correct, what we have is the US Congress passing a resolution clearly directed to "benefit" less than 3% of the American population. Moreover, it makes no mention at all of people who do not believe in ANY religion. Although I myself do believe in G-d, what about the rights of those who don't believe in any religion? This is worse than pandering to a tiny minority of the population; it's setting them up for "special" treatment in direct contradiction to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The resolution says it is the sense of the United States Congress that Muslims deserve certain priviliges and rights. Just think about this: law enforcement will have to resist arresting someone for supporting terrorist jihad, or for committing terrorist jihad, because there will be a problem in the courts because accused terrorists won't be able to be prosecuted for terrorist jihad or for supporting terrorist jihad because jihad is mentioned in the Koran, and arresting someone for their beliefs in the Koran would be akin to a hate crime. To interfere with somebody's holy right to carry out jihad will be viewed as a bias-motivated act, and that is contrary to Conyer's resolution introduced into Congress.

What this resolution does, Menachem, is excise Islam from public opinion and criticism. Islam needs to be talked about, but with this resolution, no one will be able to discuss it openly for fear of appearing intolerant to Muslims. The resolution also suggests that Muslims will have the right to pray in school while Jewish and Christian children will be forbidden to do the same thing. It also means that menorahs and crosses will be removed from public places, but the crescent moon and stars representing Islam will be able to hang from US government buildings for fear of removing them will be perceived by 3% of the US population as a hate crime.

This resolution also will enable Muslims in the United States to follow the pattern of Muslim agitation for special consideration in every country they have managed to infiltrate when their numbers reach a critical mass, as in Thailand, the Philippines, Kashmir, the former Soviet Union, and on and on and on. In just about every country in the world where there is a significant Muslim minority, there is constant conflict. Muslims just can't live with others in peace, and they refuse to live under an "infidel" government or abide by its rules.

Menachem, many of us are offended that a congressman, even if he's only pandering, would attempt to have the Congress of the United States of America place its imprimatur (Latin for "let it be printed") on a book that mandates the killing of people who do not accept it; the hunting down and killing of Jews, Christians, Hindus, and anyone else who does not willingly accept Islam.

Why should a resolution of Congress single out "the Abrahamic faiths" for special consideration? Isn't that a slap at our Hindu citizens of this country? Isn't that a slap at our Buddhist citizens of this country? Isn't that a slap at all of the citizens of this country whose religion is not "Abrahamic" according to the Muslim definition of Abrahamic?

This resolution imparts a kind of special treatment which frankly, is part and parcel of the Islamic agenda of working towards, first, our acceptance of the institution of shari'a law in Muslim communities and then in the country at large.

This is why naming the enemy at the start of this war on September 11, 2001, was so vital.

Menachem, I hope my explanation helps you understand what this country is fighting; it's the same exact enemy that Israel has been fighting for the past 60 years.