Saturday, 5 February 2011
Islam & The Constitution

After berating the idea that Islam should not be classified as a religion without reading my arguments and attacking Baron Bodissey for defending me, Lawrence Auster presents his solution: amend the First Amendment specifially to exclude Islam from religious protection and then add another constitutional amendment to outlaw the practice of Islam completely.

In America, we worship the right of religions, of all religions, to be free of government interference. Therefore we are unable to distinguish between a peaceful religion and a religion which commands its followers to subvert our government and murder us. We are mentally paralyzed by the First Amendment. Which is why, as I have argued, we cannot solve the Islam threat without a further constitutional amendment stating that the word "religion" in the First Amendment's commandment that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" does not mean Islam. A more direct approach would be a constitutional amendment that simply outlaws the practice of Islam in the United States.

Passing a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult as anyone who remembers the battle over the ERA will attest. Simply reclassifying Islam out of the religion category would remove its Constitutional protection and enable us to deal with it as the all-encompassing ideology it is without the necessity of outlawing its practice. My approach is also applicable accross national boundaries.

Posted on 02/05/2011 6:50 AM by Rebecca Bynum
5 Feb 2011
Send an emailAlan R

In contrast, this approach by PM Cameron to Islam today is tentative, inadequate and ultimately misguided on the nature of the threat from Islam.


"Muslims must embrace our British values, David Cameron says"

2.) Perhaps the best thing about this overly optimistic article is the photo:

"David Cameron's Munich speech - an end to multiculturalism and an end to Islamic extremism "

5 Feb 2011
Send an emailHugh Fitzgerald

At the very least, there is no need to quietly accept -- as if taking judicial notice of a truth so obvious no one dare to question it -- the notion of Islam as a "religion" entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of what constitutes a religion. It may never do so. But at least let the question of what Islam is be put into play, be discussed, as a way to force people to consider this Total Belief-System, and to create an atmosphere in which doubts can be expressed by all kinds of doubting Thomasses as to whether or not Islam is, in the vague sense those who use the word have of these things, a "religion" at all. Put those who call it that on the defensive, always and everywhere. 

One more thing. Whenever Muslim apologists and propagajndists try to start this "three abrahamic faiths" nonsense in the context of wanting to have more and yet more "interfaith dialogue" that lures the least-informed and most gullgible of Christian and Jewish clerics, who are often -- for bizarre reasons of their own often outright sympathizers with Islam, sometimes for reasons of moral self-preening or to settle scores with those they consider domestic political opponents- always demand that Hindus and Buddhists be cincluded in this Interfaith Healing business. Christians and Jews will find nothing wrong with this. But Muslims will be furious, for this dilutes their "three abrahamic faiths" business, and what's more, they cannot stand -- even less than they can stand Christians and Jews -- Hindus and Buddhists. So insist. And then enjoy the spectacle of  Muslims, furious at those who dare to raise the issue of whether or not Islam should properly be called a religion, themselves denying that Hinduism and Buddhism (and many other faiths) deserve that designation.