DO we have the right to disobey Islamic law?

Congress shall make no law.

My Green Room colleague Laura Curtis asked yesterday whether we should have the right to disobey Islamic law, and her post understandably got a lot of interest.

I would like to suggest that we need to pose the question a different way, because how we answer it will depend on how it is asked.  I believe the correct question is: Do we have the right to disobey Islamic law?

That’s how the philosophers of America’s founding would have put the question.  They saw rights not as things we “should” have, but as things we do have.  These rights are unalienable, regardless of whether anyone else thinks we “should” have them.  They are not up for debate.  They are an endowment from God, and the limited set of unabrogable natural rights that inhere in each of us may not be breached by human governments or other human agency.

The list of rights in the Declaration of Independence is very short:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Bill of Rights enumerates rights which may not be abridged, and specifies certain protections for the people (e.g., against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination in a court proceeding).  The First and Second Amendments lay out clearly which rights the government of the United States may not infringe:

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Founders would have said that they crafted the First Amendment because men do, inherently and indisputably, have the right to free speech and the free practice of religion.

They did not exclude the possibility that state and local governments might place limits on speech, nor did they consider it inconsistent that several of the states had state-sponsored churches (denominations) at the time the Constitution was ratified.  But the Founders’ concern was with limiting the federal government, and the chief counterweight they invoked to do that was the natural, God-given rights of men.  They had a conscious idea of meaning in nationhood – the concept of a “national idea” that transcended the particular and detailed administration of civil life – and that national idea was of government so carefully limited as to guarantee but not infringe on the people’s rights.

America’s Founders had arrived at this idea of government through a philosophical evolution peculiar to the West.  Judaism, secular philosophy, and Christianity all contributed to it.  The Protestant idea of individual choice – individual response to God, individual salvation, the “priesthood of believers” referred to in 1 Peter 2:5-9 – became the culminating principle on which the Founders proposed to base a national government that did not regulate the people’s moral or spiritual lives.  If each person has a moral choice of his own, so the thinking went – if each person stands before God as an individual, and chooses to accept or reject – then it is not the business of human government to interpose itself in that dynamic.

It is important to note here that the fundamental premise of the Founders, who were almost all Protestant Christians (but included Catholics and Jews), was different from the premise of globalist Islam.  There had been a time in Western history when monarchs and would-be emperors conceived themselves to be warriors for God, advancing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ through the sword.  The underlying assumption was that humans were to effect the universal acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ – an end-state against which the forces of evil constantly interposed themselves.

The rise of an armed, distinctive organization in the Christian West coincided with, and was in part prompted by, the armed expansion of Islam from the 7th to the 10th centuries.  Islam was and remains a universalist creed, with a vision of an end-state in which all the world submits to Islamic unity (“submission” and “unity” being the typical translations of the word Islam in Western languages).  But Christianity, through the great upheaval of the Protestant Reformation, and the Counterreformation of the Catholic Church which followed, detached itself over time from ideas of earthly empire and forcible expansion.

Christians today don’t conceive of the eschatological culmination laid out in Biblical prophecy as something they have to try to bring about – and certainly not through the means of the armed state.  Whether Catholic or Protestant, Christians believe fundamentally that while the church is and should be a positive influence in the world, God’s relations with men are not brokered by the state.  Rather, they must be respected by the state, must be honored as a positive influence in the people’s lives, and – from the standpoint of regulation or other law, and certainly from the standpoint of assessing religious doctrine – must be left alone.

These ideas underlie the quintessentially American view that government – and the national government in particular – must not seek to repress or punish speech about God.  We are all going to say things others find offensive, whether it’s sophomoric atheists calling Christians “Christofascists” and mocking our “Sky God,” or Christian leaders proclaiming that God doesn’t hear the prayers of Jews, or Jews proclaiming that the Messiah hasn’t come yet – or, indeed, anyone of any faith (or none) saying that he doesn’t believe Mohammed was a prophet of God.

Restricting religious, philosophical, artistic, or intellectual speech is inherently a slippery slope.  There is no way to do it safely.  Today Islamic radicals may riot over ridicule of Mohammed, but it will not stop there.  The day will come quickly when a Christian or Jew who simply rejects Mohammed as a prophet of God – however quietly or respectfully – will be considered to have defamed Mohammed and Islam.  Yet faithful Christians and Jews must reject the Mohammed proposition.  It cannot be accommodated in their relations with God.

The American Founders had the answer to this, an answer derived from centuries of learning, thinking, inspiration, and painful adjustment in the Judeo-Christian West.  The answer is that human government does not broker or settle these issues.  It punishes rioters, regardless of why they riot, and it protects the lives and rights of citizens with whom the rioters disagree.

Government may affirm what is obvious and true, such as that the United States is traditionally a Christian nation, or that Israel is and should be a Jewish state.  Muslim nations are free to affirm their Islamic identity.

But the American way, based on centuries of the study of God, is to honor and protect above all the freedom of each individual to approach God as seems best to him, even if that means ridiculing (or simply rejecting) the religious beliefs of another.  This is not a light or transient principle, something that should or must fold under pressure.

It is a unique way for religions and denominations to live in peace.  It is the best thing the world has ever found, in terms of a political attitude toward religion and freedom of speech.  It deliberately and specifically invokes the provision of God; it is not a secular idea.  It is only in the last 30-40 years that Americans have lost their sense of that.

Our American idea is of a nation protecting the people’s most important God-given freedoms.  Our idea is not transnational, globalist, or eschatological.  Our idea thus acknowledges the limitations of human government and force, which cannot bring about anybody’s “kingdom of God.”  I affirm that the American principle is true and right.  We do inherently have the right to “disobey Islamic law.”  We have the right to approach God as each of us individually sees fit, including rejecting the idea of Him.  It is not our government’s job to tell some to be silent in order to satisfy others.  It is our government’s job to protect our rights and keep the peace.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.

Note for new commenters:  Welcome!  There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam.  There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.

115 thoughts on “DO we have the right to disobey Islamic law?”

  1. The problem becomes much more complicated, I think, when we enter into direct conflicts of philosophies and beliefs with a religion that DEMANDS that those that are “infidels” be enslaved, killed or taxed for being so. This is an integral part/philosophy/mandate of the Muslim religion as is all those burka wearing, hair and skin covering rules that are imposed upon Muslim women in strict Muslim countries. Ditto for “honor punishments”, forced female mutilation, etc. These things stand, as we know, in direct opposition to our own laws and rules of cohabitation and to our most important rights under our constitution.

    So, while I agree with Opticon that we DO indeed have the right, as well as the responsibility, to not adhere, follow or consider Muslim or Sharia law, do the Muslims that choose to live here feel that they DO have the right to ignore or supersede our constitutional laws when those laws stand opposed or differ from their own religious beliefs? I ask because I for one will not follow any law, regardless of procedence, if that law goes or forces me to go against my religious or moral beliefs.

    Also, it’s particularly interesting to me that the question was even posed by Ms. Curtis and more so in the form in which it was posed (the “should” factor). To me the answer, if not completely and totally automatic, should be totally clear to any and to all.

    Is water wet…?

    And, yes, I agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically with Opticon on what is and what is not our government’s job. I only wish our government would agree with her too.

    Opticon for President…? Nah…never happen. Too much of a Judechristo fascist… 🙂


    1. “we DO indeed have the right, as well as the responsibility, to not adhere, follow or consider Muslim or Sharia law, do the Muslims that choose to live here feel that they DO have the right to ignore or supersede our constitutional laws when those laws stand opposed or differ from their own religious beliefs? I ask because I for one will not follow any law, regardless of procedence, if that law goes or forces me to go against my religious or moral beliefs.”

      That is a most excellent question. Which perhaps gets to the very heart of the issue.

      The quick and facile answer is that no, Muslims do not have that right when an Islamic tenet is in direct opposition to the Constitution. The proscription against the Mormon church’s prior advocacy of polygamy comes to mind as an example.

      But in the case of Muslims its not just a little compromise we ask of them, or they of us.

      Islam presents a much greater challenge because its not one tenet in conflict but multiple theological and fundamental tenets in conflict with our Constitutional law’s very foundations.

      Of course its not Muslim belief which is at issue but behavior based in those beliefs which is contrary to our laws.

      Some will say that Islam will, in time, simply reform until the conflict is no longer an issue.

      The problem with Islam reforming (and why it hasn’t already) is that Islam proclaims that its most foundational tenet is that the Qur’an are the direct words of God.

      Which means of course that its words cannot be changed without rejecting Muhammad’s foundational claim.

      Muhammad staked everything upon this assertion. To assert that the Qur’an can be changed is to implicitly state that the Qur’an words are not God’s but Muhammad’s and that makes him either a liar or deluded.

      Islam’s tenets cannot be changed without collapsing its theological foundations. Unlike Christianity where Jesus wrote nothing down, Muhammad wrote it all down and because he succeeded, everything he said was carefully written down and carefully preserved as a matter of faith. There were no translations from language to language. It’s all in Aramaic.

      We’ve finally run into a situation which cannot be resolved with separation of church and state because Islam cannot accept that principle.

  2. There’s an important point that perhaps was too quickly passed over without sufficient examination. Specifically;

    “These rights are unalienable, regardless of whether anyone else thinks we “should” have them. They are not up for debate. They are an endowment from God, and the limited set of unabrogable natural rights that inhere in each of us may not be breached by human governments or other human agency.”

    Unalienable rights granted as an endowment from God or our creator, to all men is a proposition that rests upon the premise that there is a God.

    Reject belief in a providential, transcendent ‘creator’ that stands above the laws of mere men and you render the proposition, “that all men have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” into mere opinion. And an opinion, no matter whether shared by many or even by all, is still in the final analysis but an opinion. Something that cannot be proven.

    You can support that ‘opinion’ by pointing out that one opinion doesn’t render another as invalid, so no one has the right to interfere with another person’s opinion of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But so too can you equally make the argument that you only have a ‘right’ to what you can hold and defend, otherwise known as the law of the jungle.

    What the founding fathers were trying to avoid was the circumstance that what one set of men can declare as our rights, another set of men can abridge. But no man can set asunder what God has declared.

    It’s quite ironic that secularists, agnostics and especially atheists claim to their ‘unalienable’ rights rest upon a theological premise with which they may completely disagree. Talk about cognitive dissonance…

    One or the other, which will you have? ‘Unalienable’ rights or separation of church and state taken to its logical conclusion? Choose the latter and you have no rights at all beyond what the current majority may agree with and the whim of the mob rules all.

    1. No, the two are not mutually exclusive. They — rights coming from God and separation of church and state — are separate issues.

      The Founders believed our rights come from God. That is simply a fact. We cannot rewrite history to make them say things about rights that they did not say. The idea of rights that are good against the state was, for them, contingent on a provident God.

      Trying to derive unalienable rights from another proposition is the weaker intellectual position. There is nothing except the concept of a provident God that can create the concept of “unalienable” rights. If there is no provident God creating us with certain attributes and relation to Him, there is no immovable source of rights that are good against the armed human state. There is only what the stronger happen to be prepared to grant to the weaker at any given time.

      I feel that it is useless to argue against the intellectual premise of our founding, since it was what it was. Protestant (mostly) Christians who believed that God endows us with unalienable rights built a singular government around that concept. It has never happened anywhere else. Certainly not in the French Revolution, which conceived of rights as the property of the revolutionary state. The Bolshevik Revolution saw things the same way. You cannot derive unalienable rights — rights that are good AGAINST the state; rights that the state must respect, regardless of how its political factions feel about them — from a universe without God. And no one ever has, in any way that has mattered to the formation of a polity. One can theorize that it might be done, but it was NOT done in the founding of the United States, and has never been done anywhere else.

      “Separation of church and state” is a concept not found in the Constitution. What the Constitution says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This was a practical matter relating to the limitations of viable law and the rights of the people; it was emphatically NOT a statement that the activities of the state must be, to coin an expression, “kirchenrein” — devoid of church influence or any reference to God.

      The Founders were certain that their own activities in constituting America were guided by God. What they had in mind in the First Amendment was the terrible history of sectarian strife in Europe, a history which had peopled North America with setllers fleeing religious persecution. They were adamant that the national government must not take a position on sectarian doctrinal matters or — as was done in Europe well into the 19th century — tax an entire people to support a state church, even when many of the people were not members of it or, as with the Jews, were not even Christians.

      The Founders were religious men who spoke constantly of God in everything they did. They did not regard religion as the problem. They regarded an overweening state as the problem. They also made much more of federalism than is remembered today; they would have rejected outright the notion that the public schools were ineligible to host prayer or the reading of religious texts. In their concept, the national government should have stayed out of that entirely. States and local school boards should, according to the Founders’ ideas, make decisions about all such matters.

      We are wrong and we reach invalid conclusions if we attribute to the Founders an idea of secularism that did not play a role in American politics or political ideas until the 1910s, at the earliest. The Founders and their unique concept of rights must be understood in an accurate context. They believed men have natural rights given by God because they were Christians, and in their view, that is the conclusion to which the philosophical heritages of both Judaism and Christianity lead. Their chief influences, Locke and Montesquieu, also sourced their most basic premises from Christianity. It was not possible to reach the Founders’ conclusion about natural rights outside of the context of the Judeo-Christian philosophy that distinguished the West.

      1. They are mutually exclusive if “taken to their logical conclusion“. Your conclusion cannot violate your premise and be a rational belief.

        I entirely agree with you J.E. as to the founding fathers mind set and their historical context.

        I used the phrase of ‘church and state’ because its so commonly used as justification. No, its not in the Constitution. But it does form part of the intellectual argument used by liberals to justify their point of view. Which is fine, the phrase within limits does have utility.

        I’m simply pointing out that they can’t logically have it both ways. If you reject belief “in a higher power”, a creator, then you also cannot avoid abandoning the underlying and sole premise for ‘unalienable’ rights.

        There are certainly secularists who are deeply religious. An agnostic isn’t saying there is no creator but merely that they’re unconvinced of ‘his’ existence. An atheist however is caught on the horns of their own rationale. Other than mere opinion, they have no basis for asserting that there are ‘unalienable rights’ or even ‘universal human rights’.

        And no, that’s not an attack on atheism, just an observation of an ‘inconvenient truth’ that I’ve never personally observed an atheist acknowledging.

        “If there is no provident God creating us with certain attributes and relation to Him, there is no immovable source of rights that are good against the armed human state. There is only what the stronger happen to be prepared to grant to the weaker at any given time.”

        That is exactly correct but it even goes further than that; Dostoevsky pointed it out, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

        All basis for morality is lost because it’s all just one man or group’s opinion, against anothers…

        “There is only what the stronger happen to be prepared to grant to the weaker at any given time.”

        And that cannot be a lasting basis for any society. The foundation of such a society is built upon ‘shifting sands’ and will in time collapse.

        Another ‘inconvenient truth’ that the left and many ‘humanists’ do not want to face.

        “Facts [and the reasoning that proceeds from those facts] do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley

      2. After reading your comment, several times, I could only come to the conclusion that you’re splitting hairs. Above all the founding fathers were practical men. Their inspiration was not only Protestant Christian but also in no small part guided by the principles of Rome and Greece.

        There are no “temples” to our leaders modeled in our capital after Christian prototypes. Examples…George Washington as Zeus. Lincoln in a Greek temple, The “Roman” Jefferson memorial. The Washington “Obelisk” shall I go on?

      3. This is mainly for Rafa, Paulite t, With all the Legalese you two have been spouting in you comments, I hope you remember what I said in my comments, about Islam and Sharia Law. It seems that they are coming in the back door. They are trying to get the Blasphemy Law Passed. Indrectly they are getting it done, slowly and surely. A good example is the New York Transit Athority can now ban ads that could incite or prevoke violence. So I take it that they will not allow Pamela Geller signs in the subway systems of New York. I read the signs, and no where is there any mention of Islam or Muslims. But like they say, if the shoe fits ware it. There has been several things that have happened over the years that have up set me, greatly. 1. being the personal responseability law, (I know all you lawyers out there eat this up) where a person can sue a bar or bar tender that served him the drinks that made him drive drunk. He should be held responsable for his own actions. 2. Political Correctness has got to stop. There is no way you can please all the people all the time. 3. When they started the smoking an non-smoking areas, I know that it wouldn’t stop there. The States suing the tobacco companys, look at the Fla. Law Suit. I think Lawton Chiles was Governor, he got a bunch of his Lawyer Friends on the Suite against the tobacco company, and the State was Awarded some thing like 43Billion Dollars. From what I understand, they didn’t have to spend one minute on the suite, but wanted their fee for being involved in the suite. I really think the State of Fl. had enough lawyers employed that they didn’t need all of Chiles friends. The thing I am getting at is what the N.Y. Transit Athority law is not going to stop there. The Muslims are going to push to have it all over the Country. That way they will effectively get their Blasphemy Law passed in this Country.

        1. Okkey-Dokey, Herman. But, please don’t put my name in the same dedication with paulite ever again It just gives me the shivers…



    2. TO GB

      “Unalienable rights granted as an endowment from God or our creator, to all men is a proposition that rests upon the premise that there is a God.”

      Yes and no. Maybe the best way to say that is “not necessarily”. When the Founding Fathers spoke of “Our Creator” we assume that they meant God and that is probably a correct assumption knowing the state of faith that existed back then and by those particular men.

      However…we also need to consider this:

      To an atheist, a person that believes that there is no God at all, nature is our “creator” and all life stems from it. If someone accepts the theory of evolution, for instance, a theory that to some stands absent of God’s hand, then someone can also accept that man was “made” or created by nature’s inexorable drive to develop and perfect itself.

      Quick note: Yes, I know that “perfect itself” stands for a lot of argument knowing what we know now about stuff like rap music, the Middle East, democrats and such… 🙂 but that is at the core of the evolutionary process concept and why some believe that nature is our one and only “creator”.

      Enter Natural Law. There are instincts that are innate to human nature some of which remain to this day unavailable to the other animal species. These “instincts” are often the drivers of sound judgment and good behavior and sometimes quite the opposite but, for purpose of this line of thinking I am only referring to the ones that drive us towards improvement. Natural Law, then, is a direct result of our “development” process (don’t get me started on rap music again…). These basic “instincts”, natural to man, not only play an important part in the structuring of our societies but also of the laws that guide it. They also play an important part and were directly instrumental in the structuring of many religions from the time of Hammurabi up to and including Judaism and Christianity when they began to look for the key elements of social order way back when.

      Now, you can award that particular road of our development as a species to God’s plan or, if you are an avowed atheist, you can hang it on the natural course of the evolution of the species but, in the end, like JE says, rights and Church and State, including atheists, agnostics and such could be seen and treated as separate and independent issues.

      Please, I don’t want to enter into a deep discussion of religious worth or lack thereof. Those here that have known me for years know full well how I feel about that, that I am a practicing and proud Christian and that I hold God way, way above man any day of the week. I am just trying to say that there is a possible line of separation between having to accept God as a ruler of men and a firm belief in our inalienable rights as men.

      That said I subscribe wholeheartedly that my rights come from God, not from man and that there is a deep danger in believing that they are granted by man, not God. After all, if man grants them can they not take them away too…?


        1. Bush didn’t bother me as much (nor did I think hims as personally amiable as RR) as I thought him a much more worldly-wise and intelligent man than the guy whose vice-president he became.

  3. I pretty well understand Islam even though I haven’t read or studied the Quran that much. An old saying said that if you allow a camel to get his nose under the tent, soon you will have the whole camel in the tent with you. The Muslims say one thing and do another. They have already established communities in this country where our law inforcement are not welcomed because they have their own law, Sharia. Anyone, Muslim or others who do not wish to live by our laws and Constitution, should leave and not come back. An example where a Muslim Father kills his Daughters in a honor killing. A Muslim husband kills his first wife because she wants a divorce. These examples happened right here in this Country already. We only heard about these examples because they were front page news.

    1. You now know what people in South East Europe, The Caucasus, Southern Russia, the Crimea and certain areas of the Levant have known…… for centuries.

      Welcome to the club. America. And if you wish to survive, there is only one way… political correctness, philosophical arguments , etc,. aside.
      You must get rid of it. How, is up to you

      1. How to get ‘rid’ of it (combat it), isn’t a question, its the question.

        If an American Muslim offers aid and comfort to any organization on the terrorist watch list, they should be immediately deported and any personal assets seized.

        We should end Muslim immigration into this country for the foreseeable future.

        Islam’s tenets should be exposed and publicly confronted. Repeatedly. Confront Islam with the truth of its behavior and beliefs.

        IMO, ‘moderate’ Muslims are the equivalent of lapsed Catholics, they pay lip service to their religion but don’t faithfully practice it.

        Given the stark, black and white strictures of Islam, its not possible to be a devout Muslim and be a ‘moderate’.

        By devout, I mean faithfully following Islam’s tenets and strictures, rather than heartfelt devotion to God’s spirit..

        Oil and water don’t mix.

        You can’t be a NAZI and be an American.

        You can’t be a Communist and be an American.

        You can’t believe in Sharia law and accept the U.S. Constitution.

        1. I have heard from a reliable source that our Military is actively recruiting people of the Muslim faith. I know why no one said anything against the Major before he killed all those soldiers at Ft. Hood. They would have been Crucified, then if not sent to Levensworth, kicked out of the Military. A lot of this boils down to Political Correctness or called Progressive Politics, also known Progressivism. (Cultural-Marxism) Cultural Marxism, causes political Correctness. Which is just one vicious circle. So two of the biggest problems facing us are Islam and Progressives (Marxists) I hope the people in this Country of Ours wake up and see what is happening to the U.S. A good friend of mine mentioned that devide and conquor is what they are doing. Hetrosexual against Homosexuals, Christians against Jews, Young against Old, you name it they Government is doing it. A lot of People have the attitude that if it doesn’t affect me I could care less about what law they pass or who else it affects or why.

            1. What happens when a person disagrees with Pres. Obama, he is labeled as being prejudicial towards blacks. Not that his policy might stink, they have to make it a racial issue. Most of the time they couldn’t defend the policies if they tried. As for me not taking my meds, I have to admit I haven’t been taking my vitimans lately. If there is any thing wrong in any thing I say, I would like to know. I also know that there isn’t any type fo medication that I know of which will give some one common sense. I am sure you have been in the Military and knows how that Socialist system works. I have known a lot of intellegent people over the years that have went to collage and beyond, but one thing that has always struck me as being funny, was the more book learning they got, the less common sense they had. I have actually seen some with out a lick of common sense. Others come out with more common sense then they had when they started. Figure that one out for me if you can. Can they brain wash students while they are in Collage, to where they lose all their common sense and replace it with a socialistic mentality? I have to admit, I know a few people who didn’t go to collage, that didn’t have much common sense either. I am just trying to figure which catagory you fit in. Its really none of my business, but I would guess you have at least 8 years of education after high school.

              1. ” I have known a lot of intellegent people over the years that have went to collage and beyond, but one thing that has always struck me as being funny, was the more book learning they got, the less common sense they had.”

                There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. The road to wisdom starts at the intersection of common sense and intellectual curiosity.

                “There are some ideas so wrong, that only a very intelligent person could believe in them. So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell

        2. Traditional European methods of eventually (which is in the cards for Europe) dealing with this issue are too bloodthirsty in the case of America.

          I would suggest constructing a legal argument that Islam is not a “faith/religion”, therefore it shouldn’t warrant protection under our laws defending freedom of religious expression.

          There must be some legal eagle out there that could make a case for that….maybe if not today, then after our next 9/11

          1. “There must be some legal eagle………..”

            None that readily come to mind. However, I did know one guy who started hearing voices that weren’t those of the Judge or witnesses, and who, to the best of my knowledge, presently resides in “sheltered” accommodation.

            Perhaps he might oblige……………

            But, I wouldn’t chance visiting him if I were you – they might keep you too.

        3. —- Oil and water don’t mix.

          You can’t be a NAZI and be an American.

          You can’t be a Communist and be an American.

          You can’t believe in Sharia law and accept the U.S. Constitution.—-

          can you be a Roman Catholic, accept the doctrine of papal infallibility and that a fetus has a rational soul ….and be an American?

            1. Please inlighten me, why is any one going to get killed. Also who would do the killing. I’ll tell you one thing, there will be some killing if any one trys to convert me to Islam, enslave me, or kill me. Those three things are what will happen to Infidels under Muslim rule. I do believe that our definition of who is an Infidel is, is a lot different than what a Muslim considers an Infidel. Webesters definiton is a non believer in a suprime being. There definition is anyone who doesn’t believe in Mohammad and Islam.

              1. That’s my answer as well Mr. Herman. At some point in the future when we’re faced with conversion or Dhimmitude a lot of of us are going to get killed. Unless the number of Muslim citizens is kept to a low level this is inevitable.

                1. TO: jgets

                  “Unless the number of Muslim citizens is kept to a low level this is inevitable.”

                  And, since religion is somewhat of a competitive sport when it comes to gaining converts, you suggest we achieve your goals how, exactly?


                  1. Rafa- Let me state first off that I don’t like having to say the things I say about Islam. I would be much happier defending a “live and let live” line.

                    I have no magic solution. But I do know that Islam doesn’t play with the same set of rules we are used to once its adherents are in the majority. Make no mistake. It is an imperative for a Muslim majority society to impose Sharia law. once that becomes feasible.

                    As I’ve stated before I would find a pretext to restrict immigration from Muslims and attempt (at least) to assimilate/integrtae existing Muslim populations as best as possible. On assimilation, if I were to objectively judge the attempts at assimilation/integration in modern day Europe for example , I would have to admit that a policy of assimilation/integration is a failure. Ghettoization (with a few exceptions) of Muslim populations in Europe is the norm. I would not be happy seeing this situation evolve in the United States.

                    1. You are sadly mistaken if you think they have to have a majority of Muslims to impose Sheria Law. They are already imposing Sheria Law in some areas of the United States and they are trying to implament it in many other areas. We already have some areas in the U.S. that local law inforcement is not welcomed.(they have their own law) I have seen a chart on how they work in other countries. Like what happens when the have a 5% Muslim population, What happens when they have a 10% Muslim population and so on. Heaven help us if the Muslims get their Blaspheme Law passed any where. Another thing we have to worry about is the U.N. passing laws and our Government radifing them. Like U.N. Parental Rights, Small Arms Treaty and such. Because once our Government ratifies U.N. Laws, they supersede United States Laws. Check out Agenda 21, and you will see what they are trying to do to us. Jessie Vantura is right about the consperacies. I never really worried about Slick Willy giving the rights to our National Parks to the U.N. Untill I read an article about a Rancher who’s ranch backed up to a National Park, had to get U.N. permission to build a shead on his ranch. It all boils down to a one World Government. And if the Muslims have their way, there will only one religion Theirs. I hope I didn’t get to far off track. I don’t see any Muslims apologize for killing another Muslim, or for Killing Christians for having a bible. Or for shooting our Soldiers in the back. But yet they want us to apologize for living. Sad part about it is Obama is apologizing. He can’t think for him self, he is run by Valery Jarrett, and George Soros, his Wife and does what he is told.

                    2. TO: jgets

                      OK, then…here are the problems that we have created for ourselves:

                      1. Freedom of religion, the First Amendment, applies to everyone, not just to those that you agree with.
                      2. America’s Muslim community is not made up exclusively of immigrants. Many American citizens have converted to that religion as well.
                      3. Political Correctness is a direct derivate of our particular form of democracy. Politicians are loath to upset large numbers of voters and are particularly sensitive to the groups that would react with the most conviction and activism (feminists, socialists, homosexuals, Muslims, etc.)
                      4. Christians and Jews are rather passive when it comes to these things and tend to shrug their shoulders and walk away shaking their heads and expecting that these “guaranteed” rights will be protected unselfishly and automatically. Did you know, for instance, that “Piss Christ” is going to be exhibited again? How many Christians do you think will travel across the country to protest this insult vigorously? I know that some Christians have opposed Abortion but, for the most part, they do so in a proper, legal and civil manner.

                      So, we’ve made our bed and now that somebody figured out how to lie in it with impunity, what are we to do?

                      If our government of pansy waist groveling politicians ever find enough gonads to enact the laws that would restrict these incivilities, if they ever conclude, finally, that “freedom from” also means “protected from” and afford the proper protections that they do now on a purely politically selective basis and offer it to ALL the people instead of the ones that are the most convenient to them. If they were to adhere to the founding principles of this nation for just once, then, perhaps, we would be able to cohabitate with all these groups that don’t think or believe like some of us.

                      But not while they so openly criticize “The Video” only to turn around and not only allow for “Piss Christ” but actually to finance it through the endowment program. All that dishonesty and duplicity gets us as a nation and a people, is more hatred, more distrust and more conflict.


            2. jgets, no, I’m not gonna get us killed. I’m all for recognizing threats and dealing with them …directly.

              I am not of the mind that we’re better off when taking arms against trouble that we do so in a way that multiplies them.

              I don’t think that every European Christian was a genocidal Nazi murderer, although thee were millions of sympathizers and people of the same mind in most every European country.
              It was enough to kill the killers and let the sympathizers live.

              There are still remnants of fanatical European Christian fascist bigoted violence, but it’s at a manageable level, and there’s hope that the European Christians will complete their exceedingly protracted effort at becoming civilized.

              Very good religion, but very perverted by the practitioners.

          1. Au contraire, Fuster.

            You can be a Nazi, communist, or believer in Sharia Law, and an American. You can be a believer in witchcraft, Scientology, white supremacy, and the infallibility of the Pope, and be an American. You can even believe that Romney is going to win the presidency in November, that God speaks to you directly, or an infinite number of improbable or outrageous things, and be an American.

            What you can’t do is break the law of the land.

            1. P, I hope that you realize that I was quoting my friend Geoffrey Britain and not stating my own thesis.

              It’s GB who gets enmeshed in flights of fancy and indulges in sweeping generalities based on chains of deduction that ignore the basic human ability to hold opinions and yet not act directly and constantly to force everyone else to be dominated by those opinions.

              mr Britain doesn’t really understand Americans, but at least he no longer refers to us as colonists.

              1. Please explain fuster, (for those of us to obtuse to grasp the subtleties of your thinking) how a Catholic who accepts the doctrine of papal infallibility, (which asserts that in matters of Catholic theology, the Pope’s view is infallible) and thus accepts the papal view that a fetus has a rational soul ( a soul being something that science can neither deny nor confirm) is, in ANY way, contrary to the Constitution?

                I understand Americans at least as well as you fuster. I’m a natural born and raised American from Middletown, Ct. and except for four years of travel, courtesy of the USN…have never left this country.

                The surname I use, of ‘Britain’, is a nome de plume, particularly appropriate because my most distant ancestors came from Britain and my actual surname’s entomological meaning is, “man from Briton”.

                I’ve mentioned this before, several times, please try to do a better job remembering in the future. Or was your lapse at least subconsciously intentional, after all, if I’m not an American then my opinion about Americans and its policies can’t be as valid as your more ‘informed opinion’…

                A variation on the old strawman argument, to cover up an inability to offer direct rebuttal, which of course is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

                1. GB, I apologize for teasing you about the handle. I was not at all serious about that past the extent of implying that you’re very conservative.

                  I’m not one who questions the loyalty of those Americans who hold opinions that greatly differ from my own.

                  My questions are addressed to yourself because it’s your own expressed opinion that Nazis, Commies or Muslims can’t be Americans despite the obvious facts that they have been and are at present Americans.

                  Americans who were communists and who were Muslims have fought for this country and have died while serving.

                  Your logic stinks because you fail to recognize that humans are not strictly logical and manage to hold beliefs that are not logically consistent and function.

            2. WOW! Was that fun or what?

              You can also believe that paulite might someday have something smart, meaningfull and non-insulting to anyone to say and, still (you might be pushing the envelope here) be an American.



  4. “The Founders would have said that they crafted the First Amendment because men do, inherently and indisputably, have the right to free speech and the free practice of religion.”

    I don’t think you got the memo J.E. We have “freedom of worship” now. You can pray to whoever you like when you’re in the house of worship. But once you step outside those doors, Barack and his legion of Beneficents (Sebelius et al) will decide what’s permissible for your religion.

    I’m with Rafa. As an atheist, I prefer to think that my rights come from Nature, or the simple fact that I was born. I can’t be intellectually consistent if I say that my rights come from God – but I don’t believe in Him. I definitely don’t want to say that my rights come from man because if they come from man, they certainly can be taken away by man. This all being said, it may well be that the Founders believed that God grants us our rights, but they surely had people like me in mind too (Jefferson’s assertion that it does him no harm if his neighbor believes in 20 gods or none comes to mind). Did they believe that God graced me with the same rights as the devout Christian next door? I suppose they may well have.

    Contrary to what many on the Left think, the Founders’ idea to have the federal govt not to impose a religion or prohibit the exercise thereof was not an attempt to keep religion out of the public square. The premise (Madisonian I believe) was that when the state sponsors a religion, it inevitably restricts religiosity. Keeping the state out of the ordeals of the church would lead to the flourishing of, in the case of this country, Christianity, which resulted in a more decent (if that’s the right word) citizenry. I’m just grateful to live in a country where I can freely “practice” atheism without fear of persecution. But I’m also *very* alarmed when our govt starts telling the church what is or is not permissible (Catholic church/contraception). This “militant” secularism must be stopped.

    1. The government hasn’t told the Catholic Church what is or isn’t permissible. Legislation provides that medical insurance must cover certain procedures and treatments. It is entirely a matter for individual Roman Catholics as to whether they will or will not avail of any particular treatment or procedure in accordance with their individual wish. In other words, the legislature has refused to “outsource” to the officials of the Catholic Church the right to dictate to their employees (be they Catholics, or members of any other religion or none) what procedures or treatments they may or may not have. This is in accordance with a basic principle of our law and Constitution: The legislature legislates. The United Stated of America doesn’t cede legislative authority over its citizens to mullahs, rabbis, or priests.

      And do you know what? The vast majority of Roman Catholics (and I’m one) were agast at the suggestion that their Church would be given the right of veto over the contents of the health plans of its employees.

      The institution of the Catholic Church might consider artificial contraception a sin, but overwhelmingly, individual American Roman Catholics have a contrary view. Thankfully, under our Constitution the institution counts for nothing, and the individual, everything.

      1. ” Thankfully, under our Constitution the institution counts for nothing, and the individual, everything.”


        Another knee slapper. Ahhh, that was funny…


        1. If you read the Constitution you will see that you as an individual have many rights.
          You will also read the bit about not endowing any religion.

          So, keep on slapping. You deserve it.

      2. Your line of reasoning is fallacious.

        “In other words, the legislature has refused to “outsource” to the officials of the Catholic Church the right to dictate to their employees (be they Catholics, or members of any other religion or none) what procedures or treatments they may or may not have.”

        No institution is “dictating” to individual Catholics that they can’t (for example) get an abortion. As a matter of fact, I don’t think the Catholic church has even claimed that abortion should be banned. All it wants is to not include such services in the health care insurance it offers. An individual Catholic can get an abortion outside of the health insurance plan that the church offers.

        1. The Catholic Church doesn’t “offer” health insurance. It’s in a different line of business. Health insurers provide health insurance plans. For the purpose of such plans, the RC Church is just another employer.
          Given that the opinion of Roman Catholics on artificial contraception is no different from the population at large, and given that the vast majority of Roman Catholics firmly believe in clear blue water between their Church and the civil state (and loath their Church meddling in politics) the bishops have shot themselves in both feet on this issue. By opportunisticly jumping on the bandwaggon, the GoP has damaged itself in the eyes of mainstream Catholics. Ironically, given the sanctimonious attempts of the GoP to cash-in on this issue, mainstream Catholics are only too well aware that a significant section of the self-styled Conservative “Christian” movement affiliated to the GoP view Catholics as worse that heritics, and the Pope as the Antichrist.

    2. To: R Emmons

      I must say that I agree with your comments. Actually, I find that easy to do because for 30 years I shared a fairly successful business with my partner who was an atheist and one of the most decent people I have ever met. I am sorry that he is gone now and would like to believe that my God was willing to make an exception for him because of the exemplary life he led.

      Now, then…

      All of us, as well as atheists, should remember that words have meanings (or used to) and that the Founding Fathers mentioned a “Creator” when they enumerates the inalienable rights of all Americans. That they actually meant God, Jehovah or some other form of deity is of no matter really. I prefer to think that they carefully chose that word, “Creator” in order to avoid excluding any of other possible monikers used by specific sects, variances or religions (Buddha, Odin, Jehovah or God Almighty, just to name a few – with my favorite listed among them. No, it’s not Odin… :-)… ). Include in that list Mother Nature, if you are an atheist “believer” and have “faith” in the fact that there is no God but None.

      The important thing to promote and protect at all cost is that whomever granted our rights to us is and must remain in a spiritual, moral, emotional or mental level several stories above man. We must then answer to that deity or entity, never to any man or groups of men and we must remain beholding to that deity or entity, never to man.

      Which sort of explains why the left is so intent in destroying that particular way of thinking. If they succeed, then they will be the ones granting favors, not our Creator.

      And to Mr. Emmons I say these parting words with more humor than anything else: Can or would Mother Nature, being a woman and therefore quite undecisive, take away the Natural Laws that she herself set for mankind when she started down the rather perilous path of “evolving us”…? No? I knew you’d answer that. Of course not. 🙂


    3. Sorry but the only natural law nature recognizes is that of “tooth and claw”.

      That men substitute other less violent ‘laws’ and ascribe them to ‘natural law’ is self-delusion.

      That is so because assertions as to what natural law consists of rest upon individual and shared opinion.

      An impulse to cooperation and ‘live and let live’, the basis for ‘civilized’ conduct, absent belief in a provident creator, rests right alongside the, just as ‘natural’ impulses within mankind to dominate other men and seize whatever they may, through the equally sincere belief that ‘might makes right’.

      Again, that is NOT meant as an attack upon atheism, merely reason and logic applied to the issue of how the assertion that ‘unalienable’ or even “universal human rights” may be justified.

  5. What a rambling production!

    Any first year law student could have answered this question in one line by directing you to the provisions of the Constitution.

    Most Americans whose name isn’t Pastor Jones know that the only laws we need obey within the United States are those laws duly made in the manner provided by the Constitution. We are free to ignore Islamic Law, Hassidic Law, and Canon Law. Conversely, we are free to enforce the full force of the law of the land against those who (for example) might believe that God has authorized them to steal other people’s property or bomb family planning clinics. “God” – whether in His/Her Christian, Jewish, or Moslem manifestation, has no legislative function or prerogative under the Constitution, and references in that document to the Deity (other than your right to believe or disbelieve) have no force of law.

    You might reflect on the fact that our Constitution owes most to the secular philosophers and jurisprudes of the enlightenment, and that the ideals and ideas which underpin it – particularly the separation of church and state – were contested tooth and nail by the Christian religions. The long battle involved in prising the grip of the priests from the throat of the state is the story of the rise and triumph of the liberal democracy we in the West now enjoy. It is a battle which is not yet complete, and some of the more “enthusiastic” brands of evangelical Christianity still want to the state to legistate against “sin”.

    Stick to the metaphysics.

    1. Your third paragraph’s content is mostly something we all agree with, unfortunately it is irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which put into plain English consists of the concept of ‘hate speech’ restricting free speech about Islam.

      Something which your entire comment fails to address.

      Your last paragraph’s attempt at historical revision reflects your deep bias. Your attempt to broadly assign to the right, a desire to define and regulate ‘sin’ is either an example of improbable ignorance or bias so deeply rooted as to preclude rationality.

      ” Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other ‘sins’ are invented nonsense.” — R.A. Heinlein

  6. By the way, if Ms. Curtis has to ask herself questions like this, it means she was skipping class when the Constitution was being discussed in primary school, and hasn’t woken up since.

  7. An interesting note, not remarked in many places, the Benghazi attack occurred on a particular date, the anniversary of the poisoning of a Shiite prophet by a Sunni governor of Medinah

  8. Just to further my education here

    Wasn’t the root of the concept of separation of Church and State actually applied in America to protect the Church from the corrupting influence of the State, and not visa versa?

    Wasn’t the concept of a official religion allowed and existed into the 20th century on the State (not federal level). Taking a Supreme Court ruling to settle the issue?

    Now, my area of expertise is not the law or constitutional law by any means.. But I do know that the constitution and laws can be amended, correct?

    Indeed, we all live under the rule of law in the United States But rules are made by men, laws, (and Constitutions) can and have been been modified in the past, so it seems to me they can also be changed in the future.

    To get to the point, without getting into details of the tenets of Sharia, is it possible for the current laws of the United States to accept the partial or full implementation of Sharia Law, yes or no.?
    Out of curiosity, can someone go around beating a drum in the middle of the night, during the month of Ramadan to wake up the faithful for their morning meal at 3:00 am? Or is that disturbing the peace?

    Can the laws and Constitution of the of the United States be amended to allow the full or partial implementation of Sharia law, yes or no? And if the answer is yes, what would it specifically take?

    1. Glad to assist.

      The answer to your first question is: “no, it wasn’t”.

      The answer to your second question is: “incorrect”.

      The answer to your third question is: “this is correct”.

      Elements of Sharia, Hassidic, or Roman Catholic Canon Law could ostensibly be incorporated into the civil law of the United States (or its states) so long as they didn’t conflict with provisions of the Constitution. However, some elements of all these “codes” would be, to my knowledge, repugnant to the Constitution, and any attempt to enact them into civil law would fall foul of judicial scrutiny.

      For instance, “thou shalt not steal”, and its Koranic equivalent, finds expression in our civil laws against theft because most Americans believe stealing is wrong, and not because stealing is against the 7th Commandment. However, the sort of discriminatory legislation that exists in most Moslem countries and in Israel would be repugnant to our Constitution if any attempt were made to legislate them into US law.

      Of course the Constitution could be changed by the means provided within the Constitution itself. Thankfully, there is no conceivable risk of this. The vast sensible majority of the electorate is unlikely to ever allow religious fanatics (by far the most numerous of which are our very own “Christian” fundamentalists) get into a position to turn the US into a theocratic state.

      Our laws reflect a contemporary and changing shared morality of Americans as a civil community. They are not laws because they are the morality of any religion, or the diktat of any mullah, rabbi or priest. The framers of our Constitution (some of whom had religious concvictions – and some of whom definitely didn’t) were careful to ensure that religion was kept a mile away from the civil framework they established within the Constitution. Other than enshrining the right to worship (or not) they were careful to ensure the only place for religion or God was symbolic.

      1. I’m not interest in your assistance.

        Yes it was

        No. it’s correct.

        At least you got that right, You musta been one hell of a lawyer.

        You have admitted that a future majority of the electorate that adheres to Sharia law could conceivably change the constitution to suit its ends. It was expected that you would attempt to change the focus from Islamic fundamentalists (which was what I was referring to) to Christians.

        For you that’s a start. And don’t expect any replies to your posts. I’m not gonna waste my time.
        Why you choose to waste yours from someone in need of “sheltered” accommodation, is your sick business.

        1. And, equally, a future majority of the electorate that are “Trekkies” could introduce intergalactic law.

          May the farce be with you……..

      2. Any part of Sharia Law doesn’t have to be incorporated into Civil Law. All it takes if civilian law enforcement officers (local, state and federal) to turn a blind eye towards it being implimented in our Country. Which they are doing now.

        1. And perhaps, Herman, you might give us an actual concrete verifiable example of Sharia law “being implimented” in our country, and the location of this alleged outrage?

          Or did you get this from another “reliable source”?

          I’m all ears.

          1. It was in an article that I heard or read about two years ago, so its going to take me a while to remember. As soon as I do, you will be the first to know. Of course you have heard about the Muslim man that killed his two Daughters in an honor killing or where the Muslim man killed his first wife for wanting a divorce. The last two incidents were ok by Sharia Law but against our laws. If I am right, they are still being sought by the Law.

            1. Incorrect, Herman. “honour killing” is not “ok” by Sharia law. It is a practice which is associated with people who hail from tribal parts of Pakistan and India. Just like “suttee”, which is a tribal practice in certain backward parts of rural Hindu India, and “witch” killings and ritual infanticide widely practiced in nominally Christian parts of Africa.
              Sadly, lots of non-Moslem American men kill their wives for wanting a divorce. To my certain knowledge killing your wife is very much not ok under Islamic law. But all of that’s besides the point you’re labouring to make. The fact is that whether or not “honour killings are ok in the eyes of a few Moslem or Hindu fanatics, or killing doctors involved in abortion clinics is justifiable in the minds of fanatical Christians, both are murder under the law of the United States and punishable accordingly.

              Now, to return to the matter in question. Can you provide one example of Islamic law (or Hassidic or RC Canon Law, for that matter) “being implemented” in the United States?

              1. There are several examples, 1. Shariah in American Courts. This has 50 Appellate Court Cases from 23 States. 2. Cair filed an appeal in Federal Court to block Oklahoma ban on Shariah Law. 3. A good article of whats going on in Britian with Shariah Law. Google “Mail on Line Monday Sept. 24, 2012” I guess you could say that whats wrong with Shariah Law is the Jurists have not brought it out of the stone age.

                1. Give me a checkable citation please for just one of these alleged cases, please.

                  I can tell you that not one line of Sharia law has been enacted into the law of any state in the US or in the United Kingdom, nor is it being “implemented” by the authorities in either jurisdiction. In fact, to my certain knowledge not a line of Sharia or Hassidic law has been enacted as civil law in any liberal democracy.

                  The article in the Mail doesn’t claim that Sharia law has been enacted or “implemented in the United Kingdom. Read it. However, I am now aware why you’ve managed to get yourself confused.
                  Under our legal system (and the legal system of the united Kingdom) the state does not usually pry into private arrangements between private citizens other than in certain situations where it steps in to countervail on the side of a vulernable party (For example: consumer law) Otherwise, people are free to make commercial contracts providing, for instance, that commission rather than interest shall be payable on loans, or that disputes shall first be arbitrated before the Hassidic Courts – which Jewish Americans operate as a private parallel system of arbitration on certain matters involving Jews. It is also common (and perfectly legal) in maritime carriage and insurance contracts to have a provision referring disputes to the Admiralty Division of the London High Court. And all these options are perfectly legal, and have always been legal within certain well recognized limitations. The important thing is that these are private contracts. The law of the US has always allowed the freedom to private parties to decide their own contractual terms (subject to the type of exception mentioned above).

                  Some Jews, Moslems, and the Roman Catholic Church operate tribunals which adjudicate on whether, for example, a marriage is valid or recognizable in the eyes of their particular religion, or for example, whether someone is a “real” Jew or not. One recent and infamous case in the UK before a Hassidic Court (The Maccaba case) dealt with allegations of adultery and other colorful matters. The important thing to note about all of these latter tribunals is that they are private arrangements, and they cannot change or effect civil legal status.

                  In spite of all the furore being whipped up by the usual islamaphobes (the contemporary antisemites) we have yet to lower ourselves to the stage where the police are being sent in the break up Hassidic or Sharia Courts, or, God forbid, the Catholic Marriage Tribunal.

                  1. You never answered why Cair was fighting Olahoma’s ban on Sharia Law. Why are they fighting the ban? It must be because they plan on trying to install Sharia Law in the future. You seem to miss the point I was trying to make. Muslims want to live in this Country, most want to live in Compounds or all Muslim communites, live under Sharia Law, and not be bothered with the Law of the Land. Untill they can make Sharia Law the Law of the Land. I know there are several Sects of Muslims. Most of them live under Islamic Law. Sharia is the entire body of Islamic Law. It is a wide-ranging body of law and personal rules,regulating matters of jurisprudence, hygiene, politics, business, banking, family , sexuality, diet and society. It is meant to serve as the governing principle both within the Muslim World, and for Muslims living outside it. As far the article in Mail on Line, the Muslim Clarics say its ok to marry off a 12 year old girl, when British law says she is still a minor and too young to decide for her self. I think the age of consent is 16 in Britian. This is what I was trying to get across to you, even though the Law of the Land says something is illegal, they still try to justify what they are doing by Sharia Law. I believe that Ali Khamenei’s interpretation of the Quran and Sharia Law is what most Muslims have to live under in Iran and other Countries. So when that Father killed his two Daughters and that Muslim man killed his Wife for wanting a devorce, both claimed that it was an Honour Killing, permitted under Sharia Law. I can’t Quote, but a Islamic Claric said that if your wife comes to you and asks for a divorce, give her a sever beating to let her know her place and who is dominate on in the Family.
                    I meet an Egyption in Cocoa Fla., and we got into a discussion about the U.S. invading Iraq. He told me that we didn’t know what we were getting into. He said that there was three major groups, Kurds, Sunnies and Sheites. None of them can get along with each other. the only way to control them was by force. Which was how Sadam was controlling them. Most of the Dictators that have been over thrown lately did not like or permit the Muslim Brother Hood to be active in their Countries. Now look at what happened. Islam on the march to world domination, if we do nothing to stop it. Do you really think that most Muslims really want to live like they do in Muslim Countries. Or do you think that there are a few Radical Intellectuals in power making them live that way.

                  2. I left you a reply on the 25Th Sept, 2012. Why didn’t you reply? Its still in the list of comments. It will be interesting to see your answer.

                    1. My reply was for Paulite T. If I missed up and sent it to you, it was a mistake. Now I am curious, why whould I not want to see your reply? I see nothing wrong in my comment. If they can’t get Sharia Law directly introduced into U.S. Law, they will come through the back door. Or through International Law. Like trying to get the Blaspheme Law passed. Or Leaders of Kansas City Muslim Group petition Obama to limit free speach of American Citizens. (By Patrick Poole in PJ Media Sept. 24, 2012

    2. No. “Congress shall make no law establishing”

      Yes. Rhode Island comes to mind.

      Yes. Amendments however have to be logically consistent with other parts to have a lasting basis.

      No, Shariah law is fundamentally and completely antithetical to our Constitution because Shariah law is predicated upon the theological premise that its entirety extends from the Qur’an and Allah’s impossible to be wrong, holy prophet, Muhammad. Parts of Shariah law couldn’t be implemented, while other ‘parts’ rejected because no rationale acceptable to Islam exists. Muhammad can’t be wrong or even ‘mistaken’ in even the least particularity because he claims that its Allah talking, not him. A Perfect God can’t be a ‘little’ wrong…thus the Qur’an and Shariah law are an indivisible whole.

      1. And where did I last hear “And this is the Word of the Lord” at the conclusion of a reading?

        I’ll give you a clue: It wasn’t in either a Mosque or Synagogue.

        Bottom line, GB, it doesn’t matter a whit to US civil law what Sharia law claims itself to be, what the Bible claims itself to be, or Catholic claims to Papal “infallibility”, for that matter, or what you claim any of them to be. The law of the United States is the law duly passed by the institutions of the secular state and nothing else.

        1. I don’t know, where did you last hear “And this is the Word of the Lord” at the conclusion of a reading?

          Please make your point clearer, that is, if you have one.

          We all quite understand the position of US federal, state and civil law regarding what Sharia law claims itself to be. You appear to be laboring under the delusion that once a bit of Shariah law was admitted, you could restrain further inroads. Which was your prior implied position. No surprise there, it’s always the position of an appeaser to imagine that a bribe will always be enough. Shariah law and Judeo/Christian moral premises are entirely different. They are in fundamental opposition.

          If you continue to deny that, your obtuseness and denial is willful.

          The roots of America’s constitution and laws, it’s jurisprudence, originate from Judeo/Christian principles, so they are not in fundamental opposition to the US Constitution. The Greek concept of democracy and the Roman concept of the rule of law rather than men is an integral overlay upon the Judeo/Christian moral principles that form the philosophical basis of the Constitution.

          Shariah law however, cannot be rationally reconciled with our Constitution. Shariah law is founded on Islam’s tenets, those tenets are theologically immovable and cannot be modified, even in the slightest without destroying Islam’s theology.

          All of this has been explained multiple times and FYI, no one has ever even attempted to rebut it. All I hear in response is silence because the logic and unavoidable implications of Islam’s tenets are simply irrefutable.

          So, if you can’t demonstrate how the logic is flawed, then you can’t rationally base an argument in premises that rely upon assertions whose premises have already been shown to be invalid.

          But then, why let a simple thing like reason and logic interfere with an agenda?

          1. Well jgets/Geoff, for example, it’s news to me that our laws relating to abortion and freedom of speech (including freedom to “blaspheme”) are derived from the “JudeoChristian” tradition.

            It also comes at news to hear that the Christian God is somehow less “immovable” than His/Her Islamic manifestation. So, do you think that Christians believe their doctrine is movable, modifiable, and refutable? Tell that to Christian fundamentalists!

            The truth is, of course, that our Constitution was forged out of the ideas of the enlightenment, and contemporary secular legal and philosophical theory. It is premised not on the precepts of any religion, but on the premacy of the very moveable will of the people. And it is the flexibility built into this wonderful document that has enabled a constitution designed as the basic legal framework for a principally agrarian monoculture, to evolve and remain relevant and effective in our post-industrial, mainly urban, hetroculture.

            The bottom line is that it is irrelevant whether a few fundamentalist Moslems believe that Sharia is the supreme authority, that a few fundamentalist Jews believe they are the “chosen people”, that fundamentalist Protestants believe that the Bible must be interpreted literally, or that a few Catholics still believe the Pope is infallible. The Constitution and secular laws of the land, duly enacted, are the only civil legal authority, and the only laws enforceable by the civil state. That’s how it should be, and if religious fundamentalists of any color have a problem with this: Tough!

      2. Thanks GB

        On the first parts I was making a reference to Roger Williams initial position on the Separation of Church and State in the colonial period. I also was referring to Congregational Church being the official religion in New England States (not federal level) till 1833.

        1. So that’s what you were referring to!

          Didn’t you know that the US Constitution didn’t come into force until after the “colonial period”? And, any legislation which might have given preference or priviledges to the Congregational, or to any other dispensation, would have been impugned as repugnant to the Constitution had it been challenged.

          Glad to have been of continuing assistance.

          1. The Congregational Church continued to be the de facto ‘official’ religion in the New England States after 1789.

            “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.” A. Lincoln

            “There you go again” with more historical revision.

            1. Read what I wrote, jgets/Geoff. It may well have been, but if it was it would have been found unconstitutional if challenged. Perhaps, the reason for the removal of this unconstitutional provision is that someone realized that this carry-over from British rule was repugnant to the new, secular, dispensation.

              Incidentally, can you or any of the commentators who claim a religous basis for our constitution explain why, if this were so, the Founding Fathers set up a completely secular framework whose final authority and arbiter is the people and not God? Any why, if they wanted a place for God in this framework, they religated God and religion to the purely symbolic?
              We might be “One Nation under God”, but the Framers were careful to ensure that this symbolic God was given no formal role or powers. (In contrast to the UK where the Queen is head of the Established Church, and the prelates of that Church have a right to sit in the legislature)

    3. To: jgets

      “Wasn’t the root of the concept of separation of Church and State actually applied in America to protect the Church from the corrupting influence of the State, and not visa versa?”

      No. It was passed to prevent Government from imposing a religion of its choosing on others. Remember, the Bill of Rights was the defining document that limited the power of government. That our government sometimes is seen using it as so much toilet paper does not void its original intentions.

      “But I do know that the constitution and laws can be amended, correct?”

      Indeed. There are no unavoidable limits on that little tidbit humorously left there by our Founding Fathers. It gives significance to the axiom that we have a republic as long as we can keep it, doesn’t it?

      If the “representatives” of the people, for instance, decide one fine day to outlaw liquor, for instance, and the amendment eventually gets ratified the law passes and it becomes the law of the land. The gangsters and politicians, with some judges and police officials thrown in for good measure, profit immensely from it, of course, and the people really don’t much care for that and continue to do whatever they were doing anyway. That is until the amendment is repealed by another amendment that amends the amendment. Confused? You won’t be after the next epoisode of…SOAP. But, it does seem that ambivalence, hesitation and changes of mind are not unconstitutional either…They are politics instead.

      “But rules are made by men, laws, (and Constitutions) can and have been been modified in the past, so it seems to me they can also be changed in the future….”

      Again, indeed they can. Laws, those passed by simple majorities in Congress and signed by the President can be challenged and declared unconstitutional and, shocking as this might seem lately, sometimes thay are declared unconstitutional and are made to bite the proverbial dust. It does take Supreme Jusges with balls, though and often, these are somewhat hard to come by. Amendments, due to their nature and status on the Constitution, are a bit harder to void, change or otherwise nullify. It simply takes too many politcians with sense and, even more difficult, with the proper set of gonads to do that and, last count, there were only a very small few of those available.

      “is it possible for the current laws of the United States to accept the partial or full implementation of Sharia Law, yes or no.?”

      Yes or no? OK, then…yes.

      Our laws are highly interpretative in nature and they are significantly dependent on motive, state of mind, sanity, intention, etc…Enter the battalion of lawyers that get the big bucks for running these shows for and against the accused but mostly for the precise and contrived entertainment of juries and judges and, voila! You do get my drift…

      Besides, there is all that amending stuff left on the table. Now, don’t get me wrong, it wouldn’t be easy to even imagine that happening given the current state of the union, but give it another fifty years or, maybe, a full century and I wouldn’t be surprised if we weren’t speaking a different language by then, forget about beating drums in the middle of the night.… 🙂

      In fact, sit back and read all the bs that will follow this and you might even get a glimpse of those here who wish for that to happen sooner than later. Anything to lay asunder the culture that made us great is just fine with them.

      Hope this helped some…


  9. Much appreciated Rafa

    Again my remarks on “Church and State” were on the colonial roots of the concept stated by Roger Williams not the First Amendment.

  10. It took a few years but at some point I learned that irrespective of what God or the law say or what you may believe; You have precisely as much of a right to anything as you, or your allies, have the power to make it happen. The right to freedom of speech and freedom from insult are incompatible until you realize that one of those is completely within your own head.

  11. “Wasn’t the root of the concept of separation of Church and State actually applied in America to protect the Church from the corrupting influence of the State, and not visa versa?”

    Unquestionably. I’m sorry to directly contradict several commenters here, but this formulation is spot on. The Founders were much closer than we are to the religious wars of the 15th-18th centuries in Europe, and their take on that was the opposite of the take popularized in Western education systems today.

    Not a single one of the Founders thought of the Church as “the” bad influence, or the state as a check on it. Rather, they believed the state could not be allowed to get its hands on the Church, lest it resume doing the things the state had done for centuries using the Church as a pretext.

    The Founders surveyed history and saw that states always behave the same way, regardless of the people’s religious arrangements. States inherently corrupt and bias religious activities. They did so in “pagan” societies and they did so in Christian societies.

    The Founders saw this issue in a federalist light; localities, such as individual American states, could have state churches, but the national government should not.

    In that concept they understood much that we have no idea of today. They didn’t mean there could be no “National Cathedral,” like the one we have in Washington, DC, or that the national government should never make official references to God, display the Ten Commandments in courthouses, or keep chaplains on staff or things of that nature.

    When the Founders thought of the state — the national government — being a bad influence on the Church, they had in mind things like religious tests for the rights of citizenship, or levying taxes to support the Church, or empowering clerics to make declarations that affected people’s citizenship rights, or using the Chuch as a pretext for making war on other nations. In each of these transactions, the state was the armed party with the choice of what to do. The state was the problem. Separating Church and state meant keeping the state’s armed paws off of the Church.

    This didn’t mean that there had never been corruption in the Church, of course, or that the Church had not at times promoted and made much of a political role for itself. What it did mean is that the Founders — correctly, in my view — identified the STATE as the entity which must be constrained. Without an armed state using the Church as a pretext, the Church was unarmed, and exercised only its proper influence: hortatory, minatory, educational, spiritual.

    The Founders, again, saw the state as the inherently corrupt temporal entity. The Church’s character was in the hands of God, or at least no good came of behaving otherwise — a judgment indisputable after centuries of religious strife fought by monarchs and states over religious doctrine. The character of the state was the predictable one culled from history by any diligent student: always tending toward corruption and the pursuit of power, until it no longer performed its basic functions, and the people lost respect for it.

    The Founders saw central government as a necessary evil. They were not uniformly enthusiastic for a central government. Most of them saw it as a nexus of overweening power and corruption, and they came to this view from their study of history. Their main purpose in crafting the Constitution — the main purpose that overrode everything else — was to limit the power of the central government.

    They did not see either the Church or the state in the way Americans have been taught to view them today. The state was not a sort of socialist Rotary Club through which the eager and well-intentioned could remake society. The state was an inherently dangerous and corruptible entity, which had to be hedged about with limitations — and should be, because of the people’s rights against it.

    THAT was the unique and remarkable contribution of American political thought. It was a sort of anti-collectivist posture, one no other nation has ever assumed. According to that posture, you don’t let the state loose on the people’s Churches or religious rights any more than you do on their rights to free speech, to bear arms, or be secure in their persons and property.

    1. I think if you look at it a bit more dispassionately, you will see that the Founders were of the opinion, not just that “states always behave the same way”, but that religions also always behave the same way.

      The proof of the pudding is that they made very sure that “God” was relegated to a purely symbolic role in their Constitution and kept well away from the levers of power. The framework for governance they bequeathed us was a purely secular one, with the people, not the symbolic God, as final arbiter.

      As for the behaviour of “states”, the Founders dealt with this issue by incorporating the contemporary and very secular concept of the “separation of state powers”, and the system of checks and balances implicit in this theory.

      And our wonderful “Bill of Rights” is directly referenceable to the ideas of the enlightenment. It is certainly not referenceable to much in Christian Scripture. However, ideas of freedom of conscience, and personal autonomy that accompanied the Protestant reformation, and the atomization of Christianity, and the end of doctrinal certainty, were unarguably influential.

  12. Actually, your argument is proof of my point, Paulite. You’re trying to rewrite the Founders into the intellectual narrative concocted by the left in the 20th century. But that wasn’t the Founders’ narrative. You are simply wrong to say that they had a set view of religion as something that always behaves the same way. That theme in Western political commentary emerged much later and was not a factor in the Founders’ ideas about government.

    1. No. Its only proof of your argument if you didn’t read what I wrote – or read it and didn’t understand it, or want to understand it.
      Neither did I say that the Founders had a “set view” of religion. Some of them held religious beliefs – others manifestly not. But they certainly had a sceptical view of any religious function in the realm of civil governance. The unquestionable fact is that they produced a document where God has been relegated to a prefunctory symbolic role, and the only positive mention of religion is that it shall not be established – and the implicit and (constrained – as Mormons soon found out) freedom of worship. Presumably, had they wished to give religion a wider recognition or function, they would have. The Founders weren’t a product of the 20th century left. They were a product of their own time and milieu. More than anything else, that was the milieu of the mostly secular French and British philosophers and constitutional theorists of the 18th century. Viewing the Constitution as being implicitly hard-wired into the agenda of a very contemporary type of fundamentalist protestantism (or the ideas on the role of government propounded by mid-20th century liberal economists like Hayek) is plainly nonsense.

      The most significant thing about the wonderful document bequeathed to us by the Founders is that, whether by accident or design, it isn’t hard-wired to any particular dispensation or fashion, and that it carries within its own provisions the ability to evolve and remain relevant as a framework of organic law and basic rights as our society changes and evolves.

      1. I should have added that the Founding Fathers who participated in the Constitutional Convention were a remarkably ambiguous group for their times when it came to religion.

        Some like Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin were clearly influenced by “deism” – a sort of secular religion popular among the “Philosophs” and the European intellegensia of the time. Adams had contradictory views on Christianity and the relationship between religion and the state. Hamilton was in and out of religion during his life. At the time of the Convention he was definitely “out”, and openly mocked religion. Madison was a firm believer in the separation of church and state. Jay appears to have been the only conventionally religious one of the lot. Washington appears to have had little real interest in religion one way or the other.
        The care they took to keep religion a mile away from the levers of state power is perfectly explicable in this context.

    2. Paulite said: “The proof of the pudding is that they made very sure that “God” was relegated to a purely symbolic role in their Constitution and kept well away from the levers of power. The framework for governance they bequeathed us was a purely secular one, with the people, not the symbolic God, as final arbiter.”

      Not only is this absolutely not true but it is also, quite simply, reflective of the abject and constant fear of all peddling socialists.

      God was not symbolic at all to the Founding Fathers. In fact, our Creator was an integral part of, named and recognized clearly in our founding documents, probably in order to dispel this particular brand of disingenuous tripe, as the giver of ALL our inalienable rights. As such, The Creator was officially confirmed by our founders, several times, actually, as the true and absolute power to which even government must bow and answer.

      Paulite not only confirms Opticon’s contentions with his emanations but he also explains, rather clearly, why the secular socialist left is so committed to the destruction of anything that might be seen as standing squarely ABOVE the power of government.


      For the reading enjoyment of others here and for the continuing displeasure and fright of the socialists among us:

      “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      1. Now, if for instance, some low-life decided that God had spoken to him or her, and told them that he or she had a right to steal your private property, and this low-life acted on his or her “instructions” from God, would you just pray they would return your property, or would you seek the assistance of the civil law?

        I know which I would do. And aren’t you lucky that you live in a nation that would protect your property against people who would claim a right superior to the civil law and your legal rights?

        1. paulite:

          Some things and some people are just not worth answering. I say that because to do so would only serve to reduce me (us?) to the same same level of stupidity or disingenuousness that you, paulite, constantly wallow in. I just don’t feel comfortable joining you there. Besides, to argue with you is nothing more than to validate your techniques and tactics of dishonesty and I don’t think you deserve the benefit of the doubt that you might actually be sincere about anything.

          Let the other readers decide if you are worth a second look; I don’t care.


            1. Nope. You can take that as my not having the time or the inclination to climb all the way down to your level of idiocy.

              You are an ass.

              Please hop on through and enjoy the others here who take you seriously.


  13. The principal intention of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, was to limit the power of government.

    You are quite right that no other nation has seen fit to duplicate these initial limitations in their constitutions. The arrogance of man knows few limits, I guess. But, also, the wisdom and humility of our Founding Fathers knew few limits also.

    That those intentional limitations placed on government have often been bypassed, rationalized, leapfrogged, made fun of and otherwise ignored by our government and lawmakers or that those “rights” have frequently fallen prey to more “pressing” political interests is our national shame as well as the probable kiss of death to our expiring freedoms.

    Oh, and before I forget, without a higher being, a “Creator”, there would only be a “god-vernment” to guarantee our rights.

    Or not…


    1. All liberal democratic nations have constitutional provisions whose effect is very similar to our own (Including the United Kingdom, whose constitution is comprised of many unwritten conventions – as well as documents including the Magna Carta, and latterly, the European Convention of Human Rights)

      While, often expressed and organized very differently, there are always two common threads. They firstly set down the organic law of the state. This organic law will enshrine a framework of limited government, commonly expressed as “the separation of powers” or a system of “checks and balances” between the three functions of government. Secondly, they will contain a bill of fundamental rights dealing with everything from due-process rights to the freedoms (such as expression and association) the citizens of liberal democracies all share.

      If you want a good example of a modern democratic constitution (Of a country the right-wing Heritage Centre places above the United States in its Index of Freedom) have a look at the Constitution of Ireland (You can google it). And the Constitution of Australia is a good example of a federal constitution.

      One final thing. Constitutions always contain within them the means whereby they can be amended. Normally, they cannot be amended by ordinary legislation, and special, more onerous requirements apply. In Ireland a majority in a nationwide referendum is required. In federal states, a two-thirds majority of the constituent states is a common requirement.

      1. “All liberal democratic nations have constitutional provisions whose effect is very similar to our own”

        Wishes do not facts make.

        “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth.”

        Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions, including “protection of the reputation of others”.

        Which would of course preclude any blanket assertions about Islam or Muslims. So much for freedom of expression.

        The Netherland’s treatment of Geert Wilders, who simply quoted the Qur’an is just one example of many that disprove assertions that other democracies place equal importance upon freedom of speech.

        In Canada, publicly speaking out against Islam is labeled hate speech and can get you dragged into court and brought to trial.

        Hate speech laws are increasingly being used in attempts to restrict freedom of speech.

        In America, the CJCS makes a personal phone call to a the preacher of a 50 member congregation to ask him to shut up.

        In the UN, Muslim efforts to outlaw public criticism of Islam is receiving sympathetic hearings from the nations you cite as supporters of freedom of speech.

        Words only mean something when they’re backed up.

        1. Absolutely none, nada, nil, zilch, of the liberal democracies are giving any sympathy to calls by some Islamic and third world countries to import a prohibition on “blasphemy” into international law.

          In most western nations incitement to hatred is a crime. Most Western democracies, including our own, also have defamation laws which allow individuals to sue in the civil courts to protect their reputations in certain limited circumstances. Many Western nations also have laws which protect privacy. However, all Western constitutions strongly protect freedom of expression – particularly in the policical realm. One need only see the robustness of political comment in the press in Europe and Australia – compared to our own tame version. (I remember a wonderful interview of a very uncomfortable GWB by an Irish journalist who asked him questions our own gutless crowd would never have asked). And the sheer joyful bloody-mindedness and irreverence of the Australian press and Australian political comment is legendary.
          It is true that protection of freedom of expression is theoretically at its most absolute in the US, but it is also true to say that protection of the citizen from intrusion by the police and “security state” is now stronger in most other Western nations. Alas, personal liberty and due process rights are better protected in Europe. Even private property and the inviolability of the dwelling house are better protected in most of Western Europe.

          The point is that all Western democracies protect and enshrine the same basic liberal rights which define us as a little band of brother nations distinct from the partial democracies, theocracies, ethnocracies, and tyrannies, which comprise most of the nations of the earth. The Western Liberal Democracies all have their separate cultures and political and legal heritages, and these differences have resulted in slightly different rights cultures. The experience of Nazism, and the tensions caused by the immigration of black (and largely Christian) former colonials has led Europeans to introduce laws against incitment to hatred. Cold war paranoia, and the increasing militarization of our society has led to some erosion of our liberty. However, the Western European, Canadian, or Australian, coming to the US will find him or herself in comfortingly familar legal territory (and visa versa) where people live in freedom, and in much the same way.

          1. “I strongly condemn the use of religion to incite hatred and violence. I also criticize any attempt to ridicule Islam.” Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament – 9/15/2012

            “In most western nations incitement to hatred is a crime. Most Western democracies, including our own, also have defamation laws which allow individuals to sue in the civil courts to protect their reputations in certain limited circumstances.”

            When factual description of a religions tenets and beliefs is categorized as ‘hate speech’ and “incitement to hatred” then those terms are being used in a thinly disguised attempt to abridge freedom of expression.

            Nice try at dissimulation, we’re not discussing defamation of an individual.

            We’re not discussing constitutional protects of political speech.

            The issue is western liberal accommodation, in response to Islamic protests of western (mainly conservative) criticism of Islam that is the issue.

            You stated, “All liberal democratic nations have constitutional provisions whose effect is very similar to our own”

            I rebutted your assertion with, “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth.”

            Your failure to engage my rebuttal concedes the point; your assertion that “All liberal democratic nations have constitutional provisions” is erroneous.

    2. “no other nation has seen fit to duplicate these initial limitations in their constitutions”

      Utterly, completely, incorrect. We Americans can take pride that invariably the constitutional draftspersoons of other liberal democracies have indeed duplicated and incorporated similar provisions.

      The arrogance of pure blind ignorance knows few limits, I guess.

        1. Pablita no tiene límites arrogancias, Senor GB. Él no cree en un discurso civil, o consenso, sólo argumentos jurídicos, que inevitablemente tienen que ser decididos por un juez. El “secularismo radical” es su “Becerro de Oro”.

          Él es también un grosero infantil imbelice , pero eso es secundario.

          Buenas dias

            1. “Pablito/Pablita” solo escribe aqui con la intencion de alterar la conversacion general. Hacerle caso, darle atencion, es lo mismo que validar su absurda existencia.



  14. The way things are going English will soon be a minority language here. And everyone knows these Hispanics breed like rabbits. Even worse, most of them are reputed to belong to doctrinaire religion led by an Ayatollah called a “pope” who claims to be infallible. Concerned and patriotic Americans should ask “Do these strange and alien people have a right to disobey Roman Catholic Canon Law?”.

  15. To get back to Optcon’s question. Do we have the right to disobey Islamic law? I’ll put it a little differently than Laura Curtis

    We are obliged to disobey, vigorously.

    Islam, Sharia law, is an existential threat to Western Civilization, (possibly with the exception of the principles in so -called “Islamic” banking, some of the concepts of which are intriguing, but is beside the point).

    History does not repeat itself, but I’ll attempt to illustrate the threat in a raw comment that will certainly have its flaws..

    The Raison d’être of Western Liberal Democracies is not to inadvertently legislate. interpret (the law), and litigate yourself all the way down to the fate of the American Indian, (I have nothing against Native Americans, it’s their fate that was disastrous), for the sake of “political correctness” or some warped interpretation of “freedom of religion”, or freedom of speech”. Sharia and universalist Islam stands against what we believe in.. it is well pointed out by Optcon’ s article .

    The “worst case” scenario of our “politically correct” attempts to somehow incorporate Islam (or the “Borg”, for Star Trek aficionados) into our societies, (which by is nature is impossible), is the fate of the American Indian Civilization, oblivion. The “best case” scenario it is dhimmitude. It took South Western Europe 700 years and South Eastern Europe 500 years to liberate themselves from Islamic dhimmitude. Apart from some small remnant populations, Anatolia, Egypt and the Levantine Mediterranean coast, (all parts of the former “Western” cultural hinterland), are probably now lost to the West forever.

    This is the fate we wish for the United States?

    They too (Indians) had their own “laws” in their “land” (or “nation”, in a loose comparison). Once they were no longer the majority or were otherwise dominated, or lost control, they (the Indian survivors, that is), saw what good their laws did to protect them against the “law” of the new arrivals, that, had no inclination whatsoever, of 1) Obeying Indian laws/customs, 2) integrating themselves into “Indian society” 3) Respecting Indian “property” (again, a loose comparison). I believe we face a similar existential issue.

    Is this the fate we wish for the United States?

    Certainly very few Native Americans believed that their “culture/existence” would come to an end, in say about 1700. But. in less than 200 years from that date, that was the case.

    Finally to remind some of us that may have forgotten…

    The concept, exemplified by the phrase “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” is recurrent in American History.

  16. It’s that time of year again. “Battle of Salamis” September 29th, 480BC.

    Take the time to remember one of the main reasons we are not writing in Farsi, instead of English (or Spanish) folks. 🙂

    Happy Anniversary Western Civilization.

    No quibbling on the date please Fuster 🙂

  17. what is more central to Western Civilization and to the American Way than Freedom of Quibbling???

    this pre-emptive attack has a Chilling Effect and I’m huddling with my advisors and hopefully we’ll eventually agree on a course of countermeasures.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: