There is a lot of disagreement about whether a moderate form of Islam exists. Lawrence Auster believes that there is no Moderate Islam. He defends his position in a very lengthy article at Front Page Magazine. The article attempts to refute Daniel Pipes' belief that there is a moderate form of Islam and that our one chance of successfuly defending ourselves from Islam depends on finding and encouraging the moderates (you will find links to Pipes' articles in Auster's article). Some agree with Auster because we don't hear these moderates condemning the actions of the 'radical' Muslims. Others say the moderates aren't condemning the radicals because they are afraid of repercussions. I don't know. But I do know that what we call radical Islam is incompatible with our culture and laws.

What can we do if radical Islam comes to our country? (I'm not talking about terrorist activity. I'm talking about the actual practice of the religion.) With our present laws there is nothing we can do until they break one of those laws. That is because the Supreme Court has interpreted the free exercise clause of the First Ammendment to mean that we cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, but we may with practices. From the Find Law web site:

The Belief-Conduct Distinction. While the Court has consistently affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, protection for religiously motivated conduct has waxed and waned over the years. The Free Exercise Clause ''embraces two concepts-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'' In its first free exercise case, involving the power of government to prohibit polygamy, the Court invoked a hard distinction between the two, saying that although laws ''cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.''

This contradicts the somewhat simplistic view of Thomas Jefferson that we have erected "a wall of separation between church and state."

So, despite our freedom-of-religion guarantees we can punish certain religious practices when those practices break our laws. But what can we do if the prospect of punishment does not deter illegal religious practices? Is there some way to preempt the illegal practices? Getting answers to these questions will require more research -- or help from readers.

---

Fox News reports:

Six Muslim imams were removed from a US Airways flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Monday and questioned by police for several hours before being released, a leader of the group said.

According to Fox, some passengers became concerned when three of the six stood and said prayers together. If I had been on that plane I would have been one of the passengers concerned when Muslims start performing a religious ritual. If they hadn't been removed I would have removed myself. Aren't they telling us every day, and showing us quite often, that they intend to kill us any way they can?

A commercial airliner is no place to perform religious rituals. If a Baptist had stood and started preaching I'm sure that he would have been asked to sit down and keep quiet -- and possibly removed. If a practitioner of voodoo had stood and started placing curses on the passengers or crew I'm sure that she would have been handled similarly. If the six Imams had stayed in their seats and said their prayers silently, most likely they would not have been removed from the plane.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is already on the attack. They will file complaints and extract apologies and probably get a nice donation from US Airways. (Jesse, how did you let these people invade your market?) This is part of the conditioning process. Keep hammering away at Americans to accept Islam as just another religion while it insidiously erodes our values and destroys our culture. Take a close look at what is happening in Europe if you don't believe me. We need to realize that they don't have to resort to violence to destroy us. Americans just elected the first Muslim to the US House of Representatives. Will the second one be elected in 2008?

Update:  Al Jazeera is coming to America -- if they can get a satellite or cable company to carry them.  Read all about it here.

---

The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed the appellate court's ruling that District Judge Barbara Walther was wrong to allow the FLDS children to be taken into state custody and placed in foster-care. It said, child welfare officials overstepped their authority, failed to show an immediate danger to the children, and removal of the children was not warranted. In other words Walther screwed up royally. Yet she is still in charge of resolving the case.

Why is a judge who made such an egregious mistake, one that has traumatized over a thousand people, still on the job? Because they are insulated from their mistakes. They aren't penalized for incompetence. In some states it is theoretically possible for the citizens to vote a judge off the bench, but it rarely happens.

The child welfare officials in Texas are now talking about imposing restrictions on the sect when their children are returned. One possibility is requiring all the male adults to leave the ranch. Another is implementing safeguards to prevent the families from fleeing the state. All this even though there is still no clear evidence of illegal behavior. But they probably feel that Walther will back them up.

Why should I expect reason from crusaders? That is exactly what this is, a crusade. One set of bible-thumpers trying to impose its will on a different set of bible-thumpers. The set with the most power will eventually prevail. Reason is not likely to be a strong factor in determining the outcome.

---