Replies

And do you understand - THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT TO BE DISCARDED SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU FIND IT INCONVENIENT?

You either adhere to it...TOTALLY, or it becomes meaningless.

Yes, this is true.

Allow me to cut through the Gordian Knot on this for you, MamaTexan:

Islam does not recognize the Natural Rights of Man.

The Natural Rights of Man are the foundation and basis of the US Constitution. Since the Muslims don't recognize the Natural Rights of Man, they don't recognize the US Constitution - nor do they recognize the Declaration, either [I'm a Declarationist].

I myself maintain that Muslims cannot be US citizens. Some would say that's an extreme view, but if you pinned any Muslim down on those natty ol' Rights, you'd find your answer. They can't accept the the primacy of the Declaration and the Constitution over their religion.

After this determination, the "question" of their religion is superfluous.

As an adjunct to what I've said above, I suspect there is an aspect shared by the Declaration and the Constitution upon which you might yet wish to muse: It is their governing use of the word "We." It's one thing to cite the Natural Rights of humans. It is quite another to dedicate one's life to those principals FOR ANY ANOTHER CITIZEN-MEMBER on penalty of all that one possesses, including life itself. Hence there is a coupling of the two documents a little artful parsing makes clear: "We hold these truths to be self evident, [list citing the Creator]" therefore "...we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor," and "We the people... do ordain and establish." This IS the original oath of American citizenship, the principles and specifications under which "WE" govern ourselves. The more I think about it, the more I realize one should not be allowed voting rights without understanding and making this pledge, with but the subtle change substituting the word "I" for "we" (try it and you'll see what I mean). These specific principles are essential to being an American. One cannot be a member of the America body politic without that sinew. One cannot expect others to lay down their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor in our defense unless we each have freely made that mutual pledge to do the same for them.

The corollary is that to shed or renounce that sinew, is to no longer be a member of that mutual pledge. Therefore, by rescinding that pledge, one is no longer deserving of its mutual protections (by the well regulated milita for example).

Now, posit this logical couplet against the Shahada and you'll see what I mean about it. In it there is not even a mention of the self making any pledge; one becomes by acknowledgment a non-entity if you will. It is acknowledgment of another divine and unlimited power rather than to each other ("we"). It is to commit one's life, fortune, and Sacred Honor to force ALL to submit to that power without any operating constraint (never mind that the details of its tenets and statutes are abhorrent to those listed in the Declaration and Constitution respectively). Because of that limitless power, one offers and therefore loses one's Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. There is nothing left of a person to commit to ANY other, thus denying the mutual commitment essential to specifically American citizenship. This is why the Shahada is effectively a renunciation of American citizenship, because it is a renunciation of a commitment to ANY person or country. There is no Caesar to whom to render, no human authority acknowledged of any kind other than a quasi-hereditary hierarchy descended from Mohammad supposedly wielding divine authority whose nature of and qualification for accession goes unspecified.

BTW, I had not before recognized in the last phrase of the Declaration that it elevates one's property to a status coequal with life itself and duty to G_d. Nice touch there.

I have been pondering the Declaration. There is a curious and troubling transition to and from the first person to the third. "We hold these truths to be self-evident... endowed by their Creator..."

Why not "our Creator"? "We the people" are among "all men" too.

Yet the Constitution is broader, "We the people" which then brought everybody under that social contract, and then restricted the vote to landed males!

The distinction is important, Jefferson is saying that only the undersigned are pledging to institute 'government among men' to secure these rights as representatives of "all men." It did not incorporate "all men" into or under that original pledge, nor did they ever request anyone except immigrants to voluntarily enter into that contract.