For a few months now, Donald Trump has continually discussed the possibility of “closing all mosques,” and his sentiments are being echoed in a large portion of the so-called “militia movement,” as evidenced by various petitions and independent media reports.

In the wake of the November 2015 Paris attacks, many Americans have gone so far as to condone an apparently random attack (i.e., no actual evidence of crime, due process, etc) on a Mosque in Canada, claiming “Islam is a terrorist organization.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. It seems these individuals are so much against the actions of the Muslim extremists, they figure the best way to handle the potential threat is to think and act in generally the same way they do: just run around attacking random people’s property because of their religion.

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of individual liberty should understand that randomly attacking mosques, or Muslims, or shutting down all mosques, would be a gross violation of individual liberty, religious freedom, presumption of innocence, and due process.

Consider the logic of this: Some Muslims attacked and murdered a bunch of people, therefore it is justified to treat all Muslims as criminals, without actual evidence, and in the case of those who advocate the burning of mosques, to do property damage or violence with no evidence, or even any actual reasonable suspicion of actual criminal wrong-doing.

I suppose, then, that the individuals who advocate this would have no problems being held accountable for the crimes of whites against blacks during slavery; or how about the crimes of “law enforcement agents” upon everyone else, especially if they are an “LEO” themselves. Are they not members of an organization which is highly prone to violence and oppression, even now? Should we not be suspicious of them?

If those individuals don’t consider that to be justified (and rightfully so), how can they then attempt to justify treating all Muslims as criminals due to the actions of others? In the end it is the same exact logic, and the same result in practice: the initiation of force on non-violent people.

It should also be obvious to those who understand individual liberty and the “U.S. Constitution” that such actions are, and would be if instituted by the State, a clear violation of their own “1st Amendment.”

The bottom line is that no matter how horrific the actions of particular individuals may be, group-think and fear does not trump the rights of the individual to freely practice any religion they wish. Until that particular individual threatens or initiates violence, any action upon them is a violation of their liberty and the “American’s” own “Constitutional laws.”

This type of group-think always results in the destruction of individual liberty; it is in essence entirely at war with liberty, as one must necessarily forsake the principles in order to even attempt rationalizing participating in the same exact type of violent behavior they condemn others for.

Just as it would be unjust to hold whites today accountable for the crimes of whites in the past- crimes they did not commit- it is unjust to hold “Muslims” in general accountable for crimes they did not commit.

Just as it is unjust for Muslims to persecute and attack Christians solely for being Christians, it is unjust for Christians or anyone else to attack Muslims solely for being Muslims.

Redblood Blackflag