August 26, 2011
-
Is Islam protected by the Constitution?
"Now consider the verbiage very carefully. A lot of lawmakers and most Americans make the exegetical error that the First Amendment grants us rights. The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody. All it does is prohibit Congress from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly.
Therefore, Muslims do not have a First Amendment “Right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement Sharia in our country."
...
"The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us. Islam seeks to take away our God-given Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic, who seek to divest us of our Rights. Therefore it’s incumbent on every American citizen to insist that our federal, state, and local governments immediately STOP the Islamization of OUR COUNTRY—starting with an immediate cease and desist on the construction of all mosques! The purpose of our civil government is to protect our GOD-given Rights, not circumvent them in favor of an Islamic caliphate."
From: http://catchkevin.com/islam-not-protected/
Thoughts? Reactions? Counter-arguments? Follow-up agreement?
Comments (9)
"Now consider the verbiage very carefully. A lot of lawmakers and most Americans make the exegetical error that the First Amendment grants us rights. The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody. All it does is prohibit Congress from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly.
Therefore, Muslims do not have a First Amendment “Right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement Sharia in our country.""
The premise is true. The conclusion does not follow.
The Constitution preserves the rights to freedom of speech as they existed at common-law. The language says it won't prohibit free exercise, or prohibit the "right to assemble." The Constitution presupposes pre-existing rights that existed in the individual colonies, and only says that the new form of government will not restrict these rights through the national government. So Muslims (and Christians) both have freedom of speech, and just those rights that we had since the Articles of Confederation were in place.
As for God-given rights, I'm not going to get into it.
"Now consider the verbiage very
carefully. A lot of lawmakers and most Americans make the exegetical
error that the First Amendment grants us rights. The First Amendment
doesn’t grant any rights to anybody. All it does is prohibit Congress
from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly.
Therefore, Christians do not have a First Amendment “Right” to build churches, proselytize, and vote their conscience in our country."
...
"The
Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to
secure our natural Rights. Christianity seeks to take away our Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from enemies,
foreign and domestic, who seek to divest us of our Rights. Therefore
it’s incumbent on every American citizen to insist that our federal,
state, and local governments immediately STOP the Christianization of OUR
COUNTRY—starting with an immediate cease and desist on the construction
of all churches! The purpose of our civil government is to protect our Rights, not circumvent them in favor of a Christian theocracy."
OR
"Now consider the verbiage very
carefully. A lot of lawmakers and most Americans make the exegetical
error that the First Amendment grants us rights. The First Amendment
doesn’t grant any rights to anybody. All it does is prohibit Congress
from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly.
Therefore, atheists do not have a First Amendment “Right” to build organizations, debate the merits of religion, and vote their conscience in our country."
...
"The
Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to
secure the Rights God gave us. Atheism seeks to take away our God-given
Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from enemies,
foreign and domestic, who seek to divest us of our Rights. Therefore
it’s incumbent on every American citizen to insist that our federal,
state, and local governments immediately STOP the secularization of OUR
COUNTRY—starting with an immediate cease and desist on all atheist websites! The purpose of our civil government is to protect our
GOD-given Rights, not circumvent them in favor of an aggressively secular government."
...
THAT'S why we have a First Amendment. Any government that can outlaw a religious belief can change its mind and outlaw yours instead.
Here's my own comment, let's see if it makes it past moderation:
Before I react to your article, I have to ask: will you respond to my reaction without an ad hominem fallacy?
Because from what I’ve seen, you have not responded to anyone who
disagrees with you without calling them ignorant, “undereducated,”
“dumbed down,” “lazy,” “unintelligent,” “imbeciles,” “zombies,” etc. So
my question is, are we going to be able to tone down the rhetoric and
have a respectful conversation? I make time for respectful
conversations, but I have no patience for ad hominem-laden shouting
matches.
First point. You wrote:
“Are most Muslims peaceful? Yes, they are. I grew up with a couple of
Muslim friends. One however, did turn radical when he began to really
read his Koran and follow its mandates as a young adult. Thank God that,
like most Christians, most Muslims don’t read the Koran. But they are
out multiplying infidels 6 to 1, and the small but rapidly increasing
percentage of what we mistakenly call “militant” or “radical” Islamists,
will soon out number every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the planet.”
I don’t care what you project. As long as there is ONE American
citizen who is a peaceful practitioner of Islam, that practitioner’s
freedom of religion is protected by, not only the written letter of the
Constitution, but by the spirit and principles BEHIND the Constitution.
Even assuming that you’re right about Islam really being governmental
tyranny at heart (which I do not accept) rather than a true religion, as
long as there is one American Muslim who does not “know” that, who
thinks of it as his religion, that religion is protected.
Which leads us to the broader question: what constitutes a real
religion? Who decides what is a religion and what is not? What is the
standard by which religions are measured? Amount of adherents? Type of
belief?
You wrote:
““Religion” was automatically implied as “Christian,” and not another religion.”
I think that this is a huge inference, and one that you cannot expect
all interpreters of the Constitution to share. First, because that is
nowhere even hinted at in the text. Second, because that interpretation
is not supported by history: Madison’s original proposed phrasing for
this amendment read, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion
be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in
any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” That first phrase in the
original proposed amendment (and thus a clue at the intent behind the
amendment) opens this up to all forms of religious worship. (Of course
freedom of belief does not automatically translate into freedom to act
on religious belief: see Cornell’s Annotated Constitution page on Free
Exercise of Religion. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag6_user.html#amdt1a_hd24 .)
And thirdly, because of the wide variety of beliefs held by the
Founding Fathers. You say that the implication here is that freedom of
religion extends only to Christians, but the idea of “Christians” (as an
umbrella term) was not terribly common in that historical period–people
tended to identify strongly by denominational lines. Out of the
Founding Fathers, some were Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian,
Congregationalist, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist… Thomas Paine was a
deist, Benjamin Franklin was a deist who did not believe in the divinity
of Jesus… Misquotes aside, John Adams hints in a letter that he thought
the divinity of Jesus an “absurdity” and Jefferson thought similarly of
the idea of the Trinity. George Washington’s assistant, Hayim Solomon,
was Jewish. So what we are seeing, then, is not a collection of men
who AGREED on the subject of religion, but a collection of men who had
some profound DISagreements in their theologies. It is that freedom of
peaceful disagreement–the freedom to, in the absence of a state-mandated
faith, practice, proselytize, and worship freely in one’s own faith
(within the bounds of the law, of course) that the First Amendment’s
spirit protects.
…
Whatever restrictions we place on Islam in America will one day be
placed on ourselves. I see secularlization far more of a danger than
shari’a: and if I make it illegal to build a mosque or share Muslim
faith, then someday it will be illegal to build a church or share
Christian faith. I do not wish to give the government the power to
discriminate based on religion, for fear that the government will
someday use that power on Christianity. Thought police (or faith
police) is not the American government’s job.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blinstst_new.htm Here we see that freedom of religion is granted in the bill of rights, #4. An explanation of freedom of religion is given in #10. Do atheists have a right to not practice a religion? Is that a God given right? I'm not sure but I do know it's a right they have, and I want freedom and Liberty for all, including and most importantly those that I disagree with. Muslims appear to have the right to practice their religion as long as it does not violate the rule of law. At that point they would be prevented from performing certain aspects of their religion.
Oh, Ch-uh, Out- I am annoyed by this quotation on many, many, many levels. Not the least of which is the absurd conception of "sharia" that so many Americans believe in. Where to begin?
Well, I'll begin with theocracy. I think that's at the heart of Kevin's fear. It's the same reason why Roman Catholics were feared and ostracized in the United States for so very long.
Mohammed was indeed a theocrat. There is a strong theocratic vein in contemporary Islam. Islamic law is totalizing- like Confucianism, there are principles for how the individual should govern himself, how the family should be governed, how the city should be governed, and how the Empire should be governed. In many contemporary Islamic theologies, the ideal norm is indeed a state which is governed by Islamic principles, in which all citizens are practicing Muslims.
It is not unreasonable for an American to be unsettled by this.
But, you know, America has laws. Jerry Falwell wished for the United States to be governed by his theology. He fought very hard for this. He fought within the American legal and electoral framework, and so did his followers. They had their say, and they continue to have their say. They were, and continued to be, outnumbered by a variety of other citizens who have a variety of other visions for the state. That's fine.
I am considerably more disturbed, for example, by Salafi theologies of the state than by American fundamentalists' (in the strict meaning of the word) theology of the state. But any theology of the state, no matter how repugnant, has only the force of the citizens who vote for it. And American citizens DEFINITELY have the right to be repugnant... just not to break the law.
But let's look at this sticky First Amendment:
"Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
So Muslims absolutely have the right to build mosques- Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Muslims absolutely have the right to proselytize- once again, that is their free exercise of religion. Do they have the right to implement Islamic law?
Well... if America's Islamic minority could elect a Congressional majority to pass laws that specifically reference Islam, those laws would be struck down by the Supreme Court. (That First Amendment again.)
If America's Islamic minority could convince a Congressional majority to pass laws that are consistent with Islamic law, without specifically referencing Islam, then those laws might stand. But we're assuming an Islamic Congressional majority... which is far, far, far less likely than a Papist Congressional majority.
@Kurasini - I wish I could recommend your comment a million times. Muslim population in the U.S. is still, what, 0.6 of the U.S. population? It's amazing how frightened people can be of such a small minority gaining a majority vote.
Part of the reason I opened this up to my Xanga readers is that at first, my blood was boiling too much to form coherent sentences. This one--and the acquaintance that was linking to it on my Facebook page--really got under my collar.
And don't worry, you can use my first name still.
I haven't gone and excised it from all the archives of my old posts, after all.
@OutOfTheAshes - I live in a country that's roughly 30% Muslim, 30% Protestant, 30% Papist. (We Orthodox weigh in at about half a percent, along with other miscellaneous)
There are definitely Islamic activists who have a theocratic vision for this country, who would like for it to be an Islamic caliphate. And the Islamic minority in this country is a huge minority.
But most citizens are not Muslims. And I believe that most Muslim citizens are quite content to live in a plural society. As are most of the Christians. Heavens, I myself live with a mixed Catholic-Muslim family. It's very ordinary.
Yeah, I hear the Islamic call to prayer multiple times daily, from nearby mosques... as well as the Christian church bells, also calling the faithful to prayer. The Arabic chant from the mosques is beautiful. Of course I would prefer for it to be Arabic Christian chant, rather than Arabic Muslim chant. But it's still lovely.
And we're in the last week of Ramadhan right now. Ramadhan is lovely. The evening iftar meals are TASTY! Eid is a blast. On Christmas and Easter, the Muslims enjoy their day off and many of them join in parties with their Christian relatives and neighbors. On the two Eids, we Christians enjoy our day off, and many join in parties with their Islamic relatives and neighbors.
It's very, very normal. It's very, very OK. And I am definitely, definitely speaking as somebody who is very serious about his Christian theology, and who does not have a high view of most Islamic theologies. Nevertheless. It's OK.
And if it's OK here, then it's without a doubt OK in the US.
I definitely acknowledge that the situation in Europe is different, and there are some things in Europe that are not OK. But the European situation is not at all analogous to the American situation.
I take issue (among other things) with his premise of the verbiage of
the First Amendment. While it's true, it doesn't expressly grant rights,
aren't they inferred? If Congress may make no law prohibiting
something, isn't it inferred that whatever that something may be is
permitted? Or, conversely, if Congress were to pass a law prohibiting
something, isn't it inferred that you don't have the right to do it?
Also, well done, @ Kurasini. Good comment.
The Declaration of Independence does not specify a God beyond "Laws of Nature and Nature's God". If anything this sounds more Wiccan or Pagan than any it does sounds like any other religion.
Comments are closed.