Posted on 02/17/2018 12:19:22 AM PST by John Semmens
This week the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 9-4 to overturn President Trump's anti-terrorist travel ban from eight countries on the grounds that "it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The President's assumption that the Muslim call for jihad from its adherents empowers him to block the immigration of practitioners of this religion into this country is mistaken. The protection of the First Amendment is absolute. It allows no exception for religious practices that entail violence. To single out one religion merely because it commands the coercion or murder of unbelievers is, therefore, unconstitutional."
Chief Judge Roger Gregory admitted that "the potential dangers of an attack from within by persons motivated by pure religious tenets was unforeseen by the Framers. Ironically, the Constitution explicitly bars the government from taking actions against the free exercise of any religion in this country. Thus far, the defenders of Islam have focused only on the admission of Muslims from abroad. It could be argued, though, that since jihad is a genuine component of their religion, the government is even barred from taking any measures to interfere with the efforts of any Muslims within US borders to convert or eliminate those who resist its entreaties to surrender to Allah."
"It could also be argued that since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized the Satanic rite of human sacrifice it would be discriminatory to deny the roughly equivalent Islamic rite to slay infidels," Gregory added. "After all, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander."
Judge Paul Niemeyer, one of the four dissenting votes, called the majority's decision "a serious mistake in both law and common sense. In essence, what they are saying is that if a man wants to kill someone for religious reasons the US government is constitutionally barred from intervening to prevent it. There is no way the Framers intended this result when they wrote the First Amendment. Freedom of religion does not entail allowing one person to harm another no matter what a religion's particular dogma or rituals might prescribe. Fortunately, the Second Amendment still allows the would-be victim of the religious zealot to defend himself."
In related news, Swedish police officer Peter Springare is in deep trouble for objecting to "the cultural phenomenon of gang rapes carried out by Muslim immigrants." Secretary General of Sweden's Law Society Anne Ramberg characterized Springare's remarks as "almost racist" and "not up to the standards we expect of our civil servants. As I understand it, these behaviors by Muslim men are considered justified in their religion if women appear in public unaccompanied by a male relative. For us to object is cruel and insensitive."
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/234906-2018-02-16-semi-news-semi-satire-february-18-2018-edition.htm
ping
Can someone remind these Constitutional scholars that the Constitution applies to American citizens, not unknown foreigners.
“Luke...stay on target—stay on target...”
I remember when the 4th was possible the most conservative court. Then George W. Bush came.
That's so true.......to a Muslim, an infidel is a dam nuisance, and upsets their chosen lifestyle.
"Away with them all."
If it wasn’t mentioned,I would have guessed the article referred to the 9th Circuit Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.