By Douglas V. Gibbs
As is customary, after the Constitution Class I teach on Thursday evenings concluded, I remained in the parking lot answering questions, and discussing various topics regarding the Constitution, present day issues, and other political concerns. For a young attendee, a Freshman in high school, the discussion he heard earlier by some members of ACT! For America (an organization closely involved in protesting the islamization of America) drew some concerns for him. Though he agreed that Islamic jihadists were potentially a danger to the United States, and the basic tenets of Islam, especially through Shariah, were counter to the principles of the American system, and the U.S. Constitution, he felt that we had to hold to the principle of "freedom of religion" first. In other words, no preemptive measure should be taken, including protesting the erection of a mosque, unless laws were broken or violence by the Islamists became a reality. He argued it was sort of like the cops. The police can't arrest a burglar for intending to rob a house, or thinking about breaking into a house. Nothing can be done until the actual crime is committed.
Daniel can always be counted on to bring the most well thought out arguments to the table.
Another attendee of the class, and a member of ACT!, responded. George, it must be said, is also very well versed on the Constitution, and compliments the class very well. He has a law degree, and primarily attends for the sake of his wife, since she loves the class so much, and learns from me the things George has been trying to help her understand for years.
George used examples to help Daniel understand what was meant by the clause in Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution that reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (which was a large part of the discussion in class as well). One example he used was how the federal government told the Mormon Church in Utah that the only way Utah could become a state was if the Mormons did away with polygamy. Would that not be considered infringing upon the Mormon's free exercise of their religion?
"Religious" practices outside the law, contrary to societal standards, and in opposition of the Law of the Land, can very well be legally limited.
I added, as I walked up to join this conversation after completing a question and answer period with another attendee, that the First Amendment only applies to the federal government. We must remember that religion is a State issue. The States, in the beginning, were theocracies, not that I am condoning such a reality. It took some time before the States also practiced religious freedom (The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786 being one of the early attempts to move a State in that direction). Therefore, if a State, in accordance to their own State Constitution, wanted to strip Islam of their religious title, and downgrade them to the political ideology of which they are, the State has every right to do that. If a State wanted to ban the erection of mosques in the State, they could do that too.
Daniel was appalled by such a possibility.
What if Nazism had decided to call itself a religion, rather than a political concept? What if the SS agents were introduced as clergy, and the swastika was claimed to be their religious symbol no differently than The Cross is for Christianity? Would we have then granted Nazism the same preferential treatment we give to Islam? Should we have granted preferential treatment, and called people who did not agree "Nazi-phobes" if the Nazis had decided to call their madness a religion? Should we have allowed Nazi training camps to be erected in the United States in the name of allowing the erection of these holy facilities? Would we have survived that time period if we had done so?
Islamism is Nazism, in the name of a religion. Remember, Iran was Hitler's ally. The Grand Mufti was close to the Nazis. Hitler learned his anti-semitism from his close relationship with the Muslims. And Sharia law is something much worse than the totalitarian madness that the Nazis could dream up.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and a contract meant to create a federal government with authorities granted to it by the States. It was not designed to be a suicide pact.
Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran. He owned it to better understand the enemy, and then waged war against Islam in the Barbary Wars.
That's right, our first international war as a nation under the Constitution was against Islamism.
Islam does not exhibit the same religious standards we have come to accept, and in fact the principles of Islam are contrary to our own system. Therefore, Islam is NOT protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Muslims are infiltrating our country in droves and don't care what our laws say. They are intent on using your sensibilities of fairness, your belief in religious freedoms, and your love of the Constitution, against you. Islam is building an empire within our borders, and they are doing it under the guise of “Constitutional Protection.” In Europe the same willingness to be "sensible" and "fair" has led to those nations being overrun by Islam. Britain and France, for example, are filled with "No-Go Zones" where even the police do not dare to enter. Islam knows how to use your goodness against you, and through cunning political fervor, they are using our ignorance of the understanding of our own Constitution against us so that they may methodically spread their madness in a quiet and unassuming manner.
For fear of being accused of being Islamophobic, our officials won’t acknowledge the imminent threat. They sit on their political correctness as the Muslims freely proselytize people, build mosques, and implement Shariah in our cities.
Like Nazism, Islam is a totalitarian political, economic, military, social and legal system. The difference is, Islam uses "religion" as the guise that allows them to spread their madness in ways the Nazis could only have dreamed. The goal, like with the Nazis, is world dominance. It doesn't matter if you think they can't, that global domination is impossible in this day and age - the very fact that they are willing to try, that they teach the destruction of the United States and our allies, and that they have made significant headway in other countries, should be enough to sound the alarm that we must stop Muhammadism from incorporating the countries of the world into a global Islamic caliphate.
Daniel, and the rest of the Americans out there, erroneously believe our hands are tied because as a nation we believe in religious freedom. They believe the Constitution renders us powerless to do anything until jihadists start blowing up in the public square after pushing the button to ignite their suicide belt.
Religious freedom is a precious thing. We take pride in the religious diversity in this nation. But Islam is not a religion - it is a violent political ideology.
I have met a number of young people who say they know peaceful Muslims, and they say their religion is misunderstood. These peace-loving Muslims just want to live in peace, and worship at a local mosque without any prejudice against them.
Some of those peaceful Muslims would be jumping around in joy if a caliphate was to dominate America, so don't be fooled. Some of these people are indeed peaceful people, who don't understand the big picture, or what it is that they worship. I am sure there were peaceful Germans, too, during the rise of the Nazi regime - but no matter how good of people they were, they did little to stop the rise of Nazism.
The enemy in World War II was not the citizens of Germany, but the ideology of Nazism. The same goes for Islam. The ideology is the enemy, and those who use it as a weapon must be stopped.
It is a harsh reality, but to do nothing is to eventually become either slaves to Islam, or to die.
Islam stands for complete dominance over anything that rejects Islam. Muhammad in the Koran that he himself conceived, claims Islam to be a religion based on the monotheistic religious principles rooted in the Old Testament. Allah, however, is nothing like the Christian and Jewish God, and more closely resembles Satan. Islam is filled with principles that run in opposition to any religious standards, promoting thievery and murderous thuggery as were the attributes of Islam’s founder, Muhammad. The self-proclaimed prophet came on the scene 600 years after Christ’s ascension, during a time the gnostics were also launching a war against Christianity and Judaism with their "Gnostic Gospels" that even today are erroneously seen as "rejected books of the Bible" when there is nothing scriptural about them in the first place.
Islam works to recruit the must gullible they can, and then teach these naive and brainwashed slaves-to-a-lie to strap on suicide bomb-belts, and kill for the sake of salvation.
Like Nazism, Communism, and any other dangerous political concept, it is our responsibility to defeat the madness of Islam, not allow it to spread through the United States.
The Constitution does not give us our rights. Our rights are given to us by God. The Constitution was not written to give the people their rights, but to disallow the federal government from stomping on those rights. Islam has no right to divest us of our rights. Islam stands in opposition to the freedoms we enjoy. Islam stands in stark contrast to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Islam is not about life, but about death. Islam is not about liberty, but of making slaves and prisoners of women and those that refuse to accept their ideology. Islam does not teach that you have the right to pursue happiness - theirs is a sick adherence to the slavery of Islam where torture and sadism is the plan of the day. It is acceptable in that ideology to publicly beat your wife. Women who don’t cover their hair are beaten on the spot. The women can be gang raped and mutilated and maimed, even in their own homes, and yet have no voice because they need an impossible-to-form group of multiple male witnesses to testify against their male aggressors in order to be believed, and in order to protect themselves from being accused of adultery for daring to allow themselves to be raped.
As for our beloved principle of the freedom of speech? Ask Geert Wilders about the idea of freedom of speech or freedom of the press when it comes to Islam (clue: Dutch Cartoons about Muhammad).
The First Amendment does not grant religious freedoms to anyone who claims to be religious. The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody. It does, however, prohibit Congress from making laws establishing a state church, or passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, speech, the press, or assembly.
Muslims do not have a First Amendment “right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah in our country. But at the State level, we have the right to stop them. We have a right to stop the implementation of Shariah law - which is a foreign law that runs contrary to our Constitutional principles.
With all of the religious rhetoric aside, we must simply ask ourselves if we have the right to stop a foreign law from creeping into our society, and changing us from a nation that follows the principles of the Constitution to a nation that follows the principles of a foreign law that runs contrary to everything American?
Islam's Shariah law violates our Constitution. Muslims seeking the implementation of Shariah law in the United States are therefore in opposition of the Law of the Land. Islam, therefore, is guilty of seeking to overthrow our Constitution, and our government as founded. This makes Islam guilty of Criminal Sedition.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
0 comments:
Post a Comment