“You shouldn’t restrict people’s free speech even if you disagree with it but also you should import Muslims into your White country.”
Think you missed a “not” in your second clause, but I know what you meant.
A similar quandary exists with Islam and freedom of religion. I am very much for freedom of religion, except that Islam has proven itself incompatible with Western Civilization.
And for clarity, Islam is not a “relgion” as defined by the SCOTUS in United States v. Ballard or Torcaso v. Watkins.
Religion, as defined legally, emphasize sincere beliefs about ultimate concerns or a higher power, but excludes systems that are predominantly secular, political, or aimed at subverting civil authority.
Islam’s core tenets integrate religious doctrine with mandatory political, legal, social, and military obligations that demand the establishment of a global caliphate—a theocratic state where non-Muslims are subjugated or eliminated. This makes Islam akin to a geopolitical movement bent on conquest and imposition of supremacy, not a protected faith.
Unlike Christianity or Judaism, which are seen as adaptable to separation of church and state, Islam is inherently incompatible with the U.S. Constitution because it views itself as the supreme law, regulating all aspects of life and rejecting secular authority.
This renders it a “dangerous political ideology” masquerading as religion, similar to how courts have denied protections to groups like the KKK when their activities cross into sedition or violence.
Legally, if Islam is reclassified as non-religious, it loses safeguards under the Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Government could then ban mosques, restrict Muslim immigration, or prohibit Sharia-influenced practices without constitutional violation.
Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (2001, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
The group sought First Amendment religious protections for wearing masks during public demonstrations, claiming it as a “sacrament” of their white supremacist beliefs. The court denied this, ruling that the KKK’s ideology was a “political organization” rather than a protected religion, and its activities (intimidation and subversion of racial equality laws) posed a direct threat to public safety and civil order. The mask ban was upheld as a neutral law serving compelling state interests, overriding any purported religious exercise.
Nation of Yahweh (1980s–1990s, Florida federal courts)
This black supremacist group, led by Yahweh ben Yahweh, claimed religious status for ritualistic violence, including murders framed as “sacrifices” against “white devils.” Prosecutors and courts rejected First Amendment defenses, deeming the group’s tenets a “political and racial ideology” disguised as religion, aimed at subverting civil authority through terrorism and racial warfare. Members were convicted of racketeering and murder without religious exemptions, as the practices were seen as criminal rather than sincere faith-based.
Phineas Priesthood-inspired Militias (e.g., The Order, 1980s, federal courts) White supremacist groups like The Order invoked “Christian Identity” as a religion to justify bank robberies, assassinations, and plans to overthrow the government as “biblical warfare.” Courts denied religious protections, classifying it as a “seditious political conspiracy” rather than protected belief.
In United States v. Bauer (1985), the group’s actions were ruled subversive of federal authority, with no Free Exercise Clause shield, emphasizing that violent political aims negate religious status.
Aum Shinrikyo (1990s, U.S. immigration and counterterrorism proceedings) After the 1995 Tokyo sarin attack, U.S. authorities denied visa and asylum claims for members, rejecting the group’s syncretic “religion” (blending Buddhism, Christianity, and apocalyptic ideology) as a “political cult” aimed at global subversion through bioterrorism. In deportation cases like Matter of Aum Shinrikyo (BIA decisions), it was deemed secular/political in nature, with no First Amendment protections for entry or activities, prioritizing national security.
Scientology in Tax Exemption Contexts (e.g., Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 1971, D.C. Circuit)
While ultimately granted some religious status, early IRS denials (1950s–1960s) treated Scientology as a “secular for-profit therapy scheme” rather than a religion, revoking tax-exempt status due to its commercial practices and perceived lack of sincere spiritual beliefs. Courts upheld initial denials, noting elements of “political control and financial exploitation” over faith, though later settlements reversed this for the main church.