Bare with me this is not hate speech.
Let's say the Aztec religion becomes very prolific in the U.S. There's temples through out the country. Our Constitution protects the freedom of religion. Great especially if it also protects freedom from religion. One day these Aztec theist decide to sacrifice a random citizen at each temple every day to ensure the sun rises. Would their freedom of religion then be protected. Of course not. It would be deemed unconstitutional on the basis that it prevents citizens right to the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.
We could then ask the Aztec theist to self regulate. That is ask the good moderate Aztecs to compell the radicals to stop sacrificing humans. Is that reasonable? These are Aztecs, even the moderates believe they are doing the right moral thing by their god.
Would it be reasonable for a theist to ask atheist to speak out and condemn all that we believe is moral and good? Aztecs would certainly expect to be the next sacrifice. Once more we ask them to speak out against their religion that is moral and good?
I would propose in this case that we outlaw the practice of the Aztec religion for ten years. We close the temples, disallow meetings for the purpose of worship, block all websites that promote the Aztec religion and prosecute violators with felony charges under due process. Aztecs would be allowed to worship at home as long as there were no sacrifices.
If there were any incidents of proven Aztec sacrifices on U.S. soil to include territories and embassies the count down clock soul start over. It would then be automatically repealed after ten years of no human sacrifices.
There would be those who argue that it's just the extremists priest that sacrifice humans. The fact of the matter is that without Aztecs there would be no priest. So either the moderate Aztecs are aiding and abetting or completely complacent. Either way human sacrifices must be put to a stop.
Similar measures are not unprecedented. The early Christian church took similar measures to stop the Gnostic movement. Are there any Gnostic churches near you? Unfortunately later they started kidnapping children to convert, destroying churches, burning all sacred writings and finally resorted to genocide. Our purpose is to to protect citizens not to kill people. Hopefully we would not devolve to such measures.
Is this harsh? Maybe but we have the right and duty to protect our citizens. Though it horrifies me to think of it we imprisoned American citizens of Japanese descent during world war two. I am not justifying this action but making the point that we as a nation have gone to extreme measures to protect our people.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to see how this hypothetical scenario would apply to Islam in our country. We can not let other religions off the hook however. It is cyclic throughout history. One theist religion commits crimes against humanity and then another takes over. I am not being insensitive toward Islam. It is insensitive for any religion to take slaves, rape, pillage, murder etc. just because they think their god said to.
We as a nation must address any clear and present danger to our nation foreign and domestic and take what ever measures necessary to protect the citizens of our nation.
Islam is not the problem. Theism is the problem is is simply Islam's turn. If someone is trying to kill me I really don't care which God told them to. I want to eliminate the immediate threat. If a theist wants to watch football with me and eat nachos then great! We will have a great time.
I will prove I am not necessarily anti-Islamic but anti theist. When it is the next theist religions turn simply replace the appropriate religions name in place of Islam. When the next religion decides it's time to burn witches, enslave, or perhaps commit genocide replace the term Islam with the appropriate religion. Then simply re-read this essay.
There is simply no good God that would endorse crimes against humanity. Unfortunately for all of us is is Islam's turn.