"Absolutely!"
Posted on 11/07/2009 10:14:13 PM PST by USALiberty
Is Islam worthy of First Amendment protection? I think it might be time for a Constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would not necessarily have to ban the practice of Islam in the U.S. But certainly, it seems to be time to carve out an exception to the First Amendment so that Islam can be restricted.
What better place to get the ball rolling than right here on Free Republic?
Am I off base here? Thoughts?
Welcome to FR.
Didnt Clinton do that at WACO!
Yes.
Wonder how long it took that troll to find that name. Pretty clever.
ping
It is worthy: it is both a religion and a talking/writing point.
What we need to get rid of is self imposed political correctness.
Impossibly long shot. You need a 2/3 vote of each House Chamber and 3/4ths of all State legislatures to ratify this. Remember, it was impossible to get a 2/3 vote in the Senate to secure an amendment to ban flag desecration!
ditto
Times have changed.
Sometimes I wonder whether Islam is a religion or an idiology. Islam certainly doesn’t restrict itself to spiritual matters.
But how do you overcome the political correctness without somebody invoking (and, rightfully so as things stand now) the Constitutional status of Islam as a religion?
Many people here seem to think Islam is an anti-Western ideology that seeks to destroy us. Yet, legally, we treat Islam as we treat Baptists.
Not to mention the infringements of natural rights this would entail, think about the precedent (there’s a lot of talk of Fox News not being a legitimate news source...). The 1st Amendment exists for a reason.
I think it’s worth discussing. But yes, we’d have to think though the consequences. That’s why I have suggested that a legal scholar be tasked with drafting any proposed amendment.
1st Islam then will go for you.
Exactly.
People should have the right to worship who or what they want in the way they want or not worship at all if they so choose. But they can't bump up against other people's rights.
You can be a Satanist in this country if you're that stupid, but you can't sacrifice a child or someone else's chicken.
Citizens have a right to weigh character issues, like choice of religions, when voting. Therefore Romney's mormonism and Obama's links to Islam are both fair game in political battles.
Government should have the ability to limit religions deemed at risk from certain sensitive positions. We don't want Satanists or activist pedofiles in charge of school children. And we should exclude Muslims from active military duty during a time of war with Muslims. In World War II we wouldn't have thought of putting a Japanese immigrant or descendant in battle with the rest of our soldiers.
In fact we interned them across the country. Internment might have been extreme, but we have swung to the other extreme where we refuse to recognize inherent risks at putting people in military positions that have an affinity with those we are at war with.
You start asking that question and it won't stop with Islam.
How about when the question is applied to:
Christianity in general
Baptists (what might Regular Baptists, Southern Baptists, Primitive Baptists say about each other?)
Catholics
Mormons
Jews
Conservatism
What about when, once this question is asked, similar questions are raised about the whether or not the protection of the other Amendments should apply to whomever?
Pretty much because Republicans are afraid to say or do anything in opposition to PC.
Democrats sure won’t.
If the GOP won’t, it won’t change.
Unless of course, the GOP is swept aside by some new entity. Because of their spinelessness.
Yes it deserves 1st amendment protections, and I deserve 1st amendment protection in roundly denouncing it. The 1st amendment exists for a reason. Don’t screw with it.
Of course people should be able to worship as they choose. But that does that mean Islam should legally be treated the same as Presbyterianism? Should mosques be afforded all the same rights and tax breaks as churches?
The better course is to dust off and strengthen Cold War era loyalty oaths so as to specifically abjure violence based on religious belief and specifically affirm freedom of religion and speech. Applied to candidates, office holders, police, soldiers, citizenship and visa applicants, and public employees, such oaths would weed out Islamists and prompt a legal and cultural showdown with Islamists.
“Times have changed”
Ironically, where PC is now the gold standard of political posture.
Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps I’m just a bit shaken by the direction of America — a terrorist act, plus an unconstitutional power grab aimed at destroying the health care system in the same week.
Maybe I should just take a few days off FR and calm down.
Who cares who drafts it? It’s a blatant violation of rights. What is it even going to accomplish? Where does it stop? More and more controls on Islam? Perhaps controls over other politically/culturally unpopular groups?
Yes, as religious institutions they should have those same rights and tax breaks. However, some programs like faith based orphanages, I believe are a privilege not a right. And I wouldn't have a problem with government discriminating against minority religions in those respects.
I see nothing wrong with federal immigration discriminating against certain religions due to cultural differences and histories of violence. Unfortunately, I think we have the same disease that a Labour leader just admitted has affected the U.K. Our immigration is actively trying to change American culture by letting in immigrants who are opposed to what traditional American culture believes in.
And I see nothing wrong with the military discriminating based on potential relgious or heritage affinity with the enemy.
You make some good points. Those oaths would have to be enforced, though.
“In WWII we would not have thought of putting a Japonese immigrant or descendant in battle with the rest of our soldiers.”
I guess you never heard of the 422nd Infantry Regiment? Senator Daniel Inouye?
Plenty of Japanese - Americans served in WWII, even in the Pacific Theater, where it was particularly dangerous for them.
VietVet.
I think this is a point worthy of discussion. It is better to expose the koran to the light of day - then to hide in the shadows of political correctness and refuse to state what the koran openly proclaims (and the tune that the Bin Ladins, the Nadals, and the bombers in London, in Madrid, in India, etc, etc, march to)...
Freedom of worship is guaranteed by the First Amendment. But if the religion in question is bent on the destruction of your society - and its guiding book says as much - we'd be 'amiss' to ignore the question. Also, I suspect that the Founding Fathers who were from a civilization that had been engaged in open hostilities with the muslim world for nearly a millennium - probably never considered the political-religious cult of islam was going to be covered by our Bill of Rights and Constitution...
A good question - but I suspect that Western Civilization would rather commit suicide than to ask the question...
Ok, but Inouye was descended from 2nd generation imigrants. And they didn’t put him fighting the Japanese, but put him fighting in Europe.
I don’t know what rules there were back then. Clearly they had some screening process, because some Japanese went to the internment camps.
We have had multiple instances now of Muslims attacking our forces from within. Hasan not only had made statements that the FBI was concerned about but was actively trying to quit the military service, and we still sent him to fight people that he clearly had an affinity with. That was just stupid!!!! Political correctness is costing us lives and it’s past time to address it.
Functionally, there’s no difference between a “religion” and a “philosophy.”) Unfortunately, any wacko PHILOSOPHY can call itself a “religion.”
"Absolutely!"
Islam is not a religion. It includes the Muslim religion, plus Sharia law, and Jihad to enforce the religion, the law, the theocracy, culture, traditions, and conversions forced by threat of torture and execution.
People who know Muslims better than I do tell me almost unanimously that there are no moderate Muslims, because their religion forbids moderation. If they’re right, and I believe they are, we’re in an undeclared war with one and one-quarter billion people. Let’s hope some defect to us.
The problem of the moment is that we’re also at war with 220 US House Representatives and some number of US Senators. If we don’t win this war quickly enough, we’ll have no reason to fight Islam: the US as we’ve known it will no longer exist, and what will have replaced it won’t be worth fighting for.
Dear Dumbass Newbie Troll,
Yes, this is exactly what the First Amendment is about. With Liberty comes the risk of not being vigilant.
Now go away, you’re making us look bad. (hmmmm...)
I like the question though - because salvation only comes from the Truth - and by asking the question it ought to force one to review what the koran actually says. I believe most muslims would ultimately have to repudiate its words... But that won't happen if we refuse to shine the light on its words - for fear of offending...
America's new god: Political Correctness,
and its new Commandment: Thou shalt not offend...
See 5, 21, and 36.
I guess you are comfortable having the likes of Barney Frank dictating religous matters. Best of luck.
Okay...I’ve been thinking about this from a different angle...
The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no law to restrict freedoms of religion, speech, and the press. As far as religion is concerned, it prevents Congress from stating that the US has an ‘official religion’ (Like the royals did to England).
Now...rather than naming Islam as a religion, could it not be restricted as a “philosophy”?
Could the Amendment be ‘stepped around’ by declaring that Islam is officially NOT a religion? Say instead that it is a “terrorist philosophy”?
Of course, we’d NEED someone different in the White House to do it...but suppose that person (who ever they are) signed an Executive Order stating that the practice of Islam would be outlawed as a “terrorist philosophy” and not a religion?
Could it not be proven with MODERN, UP-TO-DATE evidence that the practice of Islam is a barbaric, cruel, and deadly form of philosophy? I add the MODERN and UP-TO-DATE statements in case anyone tried to throw the whole “Crusades” thing back on Christianity. That type of thing isn’t practiced anymore, and is not relevant to the argument against Islam.
If Islam was declared an “outlaw philosophy” and not a religion, law enforcement would be free to close and destroy mosques and “Islamic centers” around the country as a threat to American livelihood. Think of it this way: you wouldn’t think of closing down the Baptist church down the street, but you’d be all for closing down the crack house a block over. Why? Because it’s dangerous. If Islam could be finally named as a danger to society, sort of like “philosophical crack”....
(Yeah, I know it’s a stretch but I had to try.)
Familiar with the Flushing Remonstrance? Assuming, of course, you are for real.
Off-base, unconstitutional.
Just restrict immigration, send back trouble-makers, ban organisations and mosques that are tied to radicals or criminal and terrorist activity, and leave the rest alone.
“Selective” exceptions to the 1st Amendment, will result in the end of the 1st Amendment for all others.
No brainer.
Should Christians in the military have been taken out for the war in Kosovo?
Yes they have, and the change is more likely to do what you propose to Christians rather than Muslims.
Don't go there. Say, let's just declare Christianity a "terrorist philosophy" because the IRA has both Catholic and Protestant members.
Don't go there.
Yipes. That is frighteningly well put.
Our military is being assaulted on a lot of fronts. I'm a woman and it is why I'm horrified at talk of having women on submarines; I already hate the idea of women on ships. Sorry, but in a situation where men are being men to kill bad guys and break things, women in regular ranks among men would and will jeopardize morale and flow of operations. It is a deliberate means of weakening the effective fighting power of the military. On submarines, it would be willful self-destruction. Then introduce the whole dynamic of homosexuals on board!
If I wanted to sabotage the enemy's fighting power, I'd work to see their ranks accommodating women and homosexuals "equally" with men. In a hot war, an all-male military where homosexuals had better keep it to themselves would have that enemy's forces sliced and diced pronto.
Dead wrong, but let me try to illustrate with a counter example.
One issue you'll find unanimous agreement here on is over abortion. We are against it. There are certain crazy people who declare open season on abortion clinics and start killing people there. Does this imply that we support those crazy people? I for one do not. I think most people here do not. We want the problem solved lawfully.
Another issue you'll find agreement on here is state-sanctioned same sex marriage. We are against it. Does that imply that we support crazy people who kill homosexuals, the rationale for that horrible hate crime bill? I think not.
Neither is the average Muslim supportive of the crazy people who commit acts of violence in their religion's name.
Hypocrisy exists everywhere. We shun our Larry Craigs. Barney Franks are entitled to anything they want. The "most ethical administration" in history spawned the most criminal investigations. The most transparent administration reveals absolutely nothing about the chief executive.
The homework question for you is, why has Ayman Zawahiri been a hunted criminal for most of his life, rather than a respected figure? He surely would have been respected if there were any substantial number of Muslims sharing his extremist views.
I agree. Especially on the "deliberate" part. The military is not the place for social experiments.
Now can someone explain to me again just why it's a good idea to disarm trained military when we are living in a country where every citizen has a birthright to keep and bear arms?
There is a great difference; and we all know it! Where Islam prospers and grows, all others are diminished and destroyed.
Any study at all will know, Where the Spirit of the Lord is,there is liberty!
“God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.” (John 3:17)
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.