Our founding values and our Constitution are based on a progression of time-tested ideas and ideals that are well documented in western civilization, beginning the writings of the ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans — that is, Judaism and the Antiquities — through Christianity, the Dark Ages, Catholicism, Reformation, Renaissance, the Enlightenment and most directly and most specifically on the Scottish Enlightenment.
You can find plenty of documentation of all this on Wikipedia and other standard sources on the internet and in print.
Our most basic founding values as Americans are listed in our Declaration of Independence, and while they are not explicitly enumerated in our Constitution, they are easily inferred from key parts, such as Article 1 section 8, the enumerated powers of Congress (that is, the federal government) and the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10). Needless to say, we’ve been exercising our values and rights rather enthusiastically ever since we’ve adopted the Constitution, by fervently questioning, affirming, re-emphasizing, de-emphasizing, ignoring and reinterpreting one or more of our values and rights in the great ongoing national debate that is the American path through history.
The rise of fundamentalist, militant, terrorist islam especially in the last couple of decades gave reason to continue our national debate about the meaning of our Constitution in yet another light.
In the 20th century we saw endless wars and the murder of tens if not hundreds of millions in the name of the totalitarian ideologies of marxism, fascism and naziism, to which previous generations of us reacted with a seemingly logical contradiction of the First Amendment, by declaring that no, “free speech” does not include advocating and taking action intended for the violent overthrow of our government and our Constitution, and the elimination of all civil rights.
Today the issue is tolerance for an equally intolerant, totalitarian, violent and murderous ideology, islam, and this time the issue arises in the name of the “freedom of religion” guaranteed by the same First Amendment. Notwithstanding the arguments of domestic subversives (such as the ACLU) in support of their defective interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the answer now must be the same answer we gave before — NO, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. In practical terms, no, we can NOT allow the free exercise of a religion whose fundamental tenet is the intolerance, suppression and extermination of all other religions, and the subjugation, enslavement, torture and murder of each and every person practicing anything other than islam.
In both cases the logical contradiction is NOT that in the name of free speech or freedom of religion we have to draw a line; the logical contradiction is that in the name of tolerance we’d have to tolerate intolerance, that in the name of free speech we’d have to tolerate speech that advocates the abolition and violent repression of free speech, and that in the name of the free exercise of one’s religion we’d have to tolerate a religion whose imperative is the violent repression and extermination of all other religions.
While indeed the practical and legal fact is that in a civilized society, based on respect for the unalienable individual rights of its citizens, we cannot punish people for what they think, only for what they do, the fact is that over the past decades our schools and colleges have been converted into marxist reeducation camps and training grounds of “community organizers” and other subversives, whose graduates have taken over our schools, our media and our government, and today those institutions are being operated as hotbeds of “politically correct” anti-christian, anti-jewish fervor, and, in addition, mosques being used to recruit jihadist terrorists who do not hesitate to act on their beliefs.
We ignore these totalitarian ideologies at our peril, and if we don’t wise up soon, we will live to see the fundamental transformation of our nation right out of existence and our Constitution right into oblivion.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution affirms and frames our belief that “government that governs least, governs best,” and specifically lists the few powers that are necessarily assigned to the federal government, while Amendments 9 and 10 explicitly reserve all other innumerable powers to the States and to the People, thereby reaffirming our belief that the government that governs best and is most responsive to the people is the government that is closest to the people.
You can use the internet or other sources to explore the vast body of proof that marxism, fascism, naziism and islam are ideologies of total government control of every second of every single individual’s life — all actions, beliefs and thoughts.
The conclusion is inescapable.
Marxism, fascism, naziism and islam are not only NOT compatible with the Constitution, they are assertions of values quite the CONTRARY of our values as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and as enshrined in our Constitution and the laws based on it.
The First Amendment affirms every individual’s freedom of (1) religion, (2) speech, (3) press, (4) assembly, and (5) petition. In that order.
You can use the internet or other sources to explore the vast body of proof that marxism, fascism, naziism and islam are totalitarian ideologies that specifically DENY the very concept of individual rights, except the “right” and the duty to blindly obey the state, and they all mock and ridicule the notion that humans as a society or as individuals are even capable of self-government.
It is therefore to our great peril that today a lot of us — “liberals,” conservatives and libertarians — declare that, in the name of the values we cherish,
(1) we have to allow massive numbers of immigrants and “refugees” from islamic countries,
(2) we have to allow them to build mosques and madrassas, and
(3) accommodate their special cultural imperatives, by changing and repressing ours,
in total ignorance of the fact that
(1) they do NOT share our values,
(2) they not only do NOT want to assimilate, they segregate themselves in no-go zones, and demand that change our ways to conform with theirs,
(3) they not only do NOT want to obey our laws, they want to impose their sharia law on us,
(4) their mosques are just as likely to function as jihadist indoctrination and recruitment centers as anything else, and
(5) their imams are just as likely to function as jihadist recruiters as the clergy we’d expect them to be based on our experience with our clergy.
The conclusion is inescapable.
No, islam, is NOT a “religion of peace;” it is a religion of “peace” only if “peace” means total submission, and total intolerance and extermination of all dissent and disagreement.
No, islam it is NOT a “religion.” A religion concerns itself with your personal relationship with your god, not the enforcement of “religious” tenets by the most brutally vicious and violent means. A religion fosters your achievement of your own personal peace through understanding and wisdom, not through public displays of obligatory self-debasing behavior, and certainly not through the oppression and extermination of anyone who might think or believe otherwise. In fact, islam is a total, and totalitarian, system of governance.
No, the First Amendment is NOT is license to preach and practice islamist jihadist terrorist subversion. Allowing it to be used as such is inevitable existential suicide.
No, the First Amendment is NOT an imperative to allow the building of islamist jihadist terrorist indoctrination centers (mosques), or the importation of recruiters (“imams”) in the name of our cherished freedom of religion. Allowing it to be used as such will produce an army of terrorists active both at home and abroad, as we have seen already.
No, the First Amendment is NOT an imperative to accommodate strange foreign legal norms. Allowing it to be used as such will end our system of laws — and impose sharia instead of our American constitutional law and our legal traditions based on English common law.
No, the First Amendment is NOT an imperative to accommodate strange foreign cultural norms. Allowing it to be used as such will be the end of our culture and the imposition of theirs —
- a culture of brazen lying to and cheating of “infidels”
- raping women and children
- child marriage
- honor killings
- generic mutilation
- madrassas instead of schools
- unspeakably barbaric modes of torture, punishment and execution
- crimes of thought and conscience against religion and religious / governmental authority figures
- destruction of non-islamic cultural and historical landmarks
- prohibition on being on friendly terms with “infidels”
We’ve already seen demands that European girls change how they dress to avoid “provoking” the hordes of testosterone crazed “migrants.” Where will it end but in the end of our rights, most emphatically and specifically the hard-won women’s rights — to vote, own property, get an education, get a job, marry whomever she wants, divorce, drive, walk outside, dress as she pleases, speak her mind, offer testimony in court, be safe in her person,….
What Did The Founders Have To Say?
Would the founders agree with Ben Carson’s recent comment on a muslim president? Absolutely. See:
Hanover College published “The Rights of the Colonists,” in which Adams wrote:
“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.”
While Ben Carson opposes the idea of having a muslim for president, Sam Adams would have opposed toleration for the Muslim faith in general.
The conclusion is inescapable. Our laws and theirs are diametric opposites, mutually exclusive opposites.
Can Muslims Be Good Americans?
(Adapted from an e-mail, represented to be coming from someone who’s been stationed in Saudi Arabia for many years.)
Theologically – no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by Allah except islam.
Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the Koran and the Five Pillars of Islam.
Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, toward which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially – no. Because his allegiance to islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel the Little Satan, and destruction of America the Great Satan.
Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.
Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the US Constitution since it is based on biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically – no. Because islam, Muhammad, and the Koran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and islam cannot co-exist. Every muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Morally, no. It is not a sin to lie to an infidel, it is not a sin to cheat an infidel, it is not a sin to break a promise to or an agreement with an infidel. It is a moral duty to convert or kill infidels. A muslim is not guilty of murder if he obeys the commandment (fatwa) to kill an apostate.
Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” we do so believing that our God is loving and kind, while their Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly Father, nor is he ever called “love” in the Koran’s 99 excellent names.
The conclusion is inescapable. Our values and theirs are diametric opposites, mutually exclusive opposites.
Muslim Behavior and Population Size
The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat: Peter Hammond: 9780958454988: Amazon.com: Books
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table.
Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country, they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
(You could also add the US to the previous two lists. Obama just banned pork from federal prisons; see http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pork-ban-federal-prison/2015/10/11/id/695684/.)
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris – car burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons; Moscow – Chechan bombings).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions (Dhimmitude), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of sharia law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
In theory, 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons (for example, sunni vs. shia).
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.” – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
In many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
Is Muslims’ Demand of only Civil Code of Sharia in Non-Muslim Majority Countries Justified? http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/madhahib-jurisprudence/46-islam/138-is-muslims-demand-of-only-civil-code-of-sharia-in-non-muslim-majority-countries-justified
Why is that every country with a non-Muslim majority has a considerable Muslim minority, but in all Muslim majority countries there are no minorities? – Quoran
The conclusion is inescapable. Muslims act as if carefully pre-programmed to be subversives, conquerors and oppressors.
And It’s Starting To Be That Way Here In The US
But, you say, but, but, but,… it’s not at all like that here,… “I have muslims working for me and they are great people” (Donald Trump)… We have muslims all over the place and all of them are not routinely going around bullying and murdering Christians and Jews…
Well, not yet, at least not yet routinely, here in America. Or so we’d like to believe. Look at muslim behavior vs. their portion of the population (above); overall in the US they are still in the quiet to not-too-vocal minority phase. But,…
Romans (and Napoleon) built arcs of triumph to celebrate and commemorate their victories. Muslims build mosques near or on top of the sites of their victories to replace the monuments of their victims which they have razed. And therefore,…
The dust had not yet settled at the World Trade Center, and they there were, opening a temporary mosque demanding a permit to build a huge new Ground Zero Mosque.
“a local land-use issue here in New York City became the subject of national debate. Two Muslim men—a real-estate developer and an imam—proposed to build a Ground Zero Victory Terror Mosque two blocks away from the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center”
“El-Gamal has not changed his plans, however, to build a three-story Islamic museum and prayer space adjacent to the tower.”
(Yea, not a “mosque,” just a “prayer space”… they really think we’re stupid.)
A recent poll shows that “Most U.S. muslims would trade Constitution for shariah.”
A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.
Omar Ahmad, a founder of CAIR, told a conference hall packed with California Muslims in July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. “Quran should be highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion.”
In a recent dispute with Jersey City, NJ school officials over religious holidays, http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/offended-muslims-go-berserk-on-school-board/#WTRfIulSlKK3X4e1.03
“the muslims warned, We’re going to be the majority soon!”
It does not have to be like that
Expecting muslims to accept our Constitution and to obey our laws is possible only if they renounce everything in islam and sharia; that is, if they stop being muslims.
Expecting us to obey their laws is possible only if we renounce everything in our Constitution; that is, if we stop being Americans.
I don’t want to change them any more than I am willing to let them change us. Live and let live. If they are OK with living under islam and sharia in their own countries, fine with me. Let us live under our Constitution in our country. We do not have to engage in war, conquest or in nation-building against each other. The world is big enough for both of us to live our own way, far away from each other.
But if they insist on bringing the war to us, then can follow the example set by President Thomas Jefferson in his dealing with the Barbary Coast pirates — beat the hell out of them, and come home.
Ideologies of total submission and totalitarian control of every thought and the minutest details of life are fundamentally and irreconcilably hostile to classical western liberalism and its guarantees of liberty and individual rights.
Judaism and Christianity are the very foundation of classical western liberalism. Marxism and islam are about as compatible with a democratic republican government based on classical western liberalism, as a fox is with the chickens in a coop, or a wolf is with the sheep in the meadow. There is only one way it ends for the chickens and the sheep. Our leaders have to convince themselves that they cannot allow our enemies foreign and domestic to use our most sacred values as weapons against us. As President Thomas Jefferson has shown, it is precisely because of our most sacred values that we are NOT chickens or sheep — at least his generation wasn’t. Our founders knew what we must relearn today, what every generation has to relearn, that THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT. Today WE have to remember that WE too have something uniquely great to fight for. What the muslims have to fight for, the only thing that they have to fight for is plunging whole world back into a new Dark Ages. Been there, done that. How sad that today all the enthusiasm is on their side, not ours; that it is their ideology that’s on the march and winning, not ours.