Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution
netWMD - The War to Mobilize Democracy ^ | March 21, 2006 | David Kennedy Houck

Posted on 03/21/2006 1:57:26 PM PST by forty_years

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: EBH

Wonder how federal hate crime laws would go over in a Muslim villiage near you.


21 posted on 03/21/2006 2:50:08 PM PST by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: forty_years

My understanding is that there is no legal way for a citizen in good standing to lose or give up their Constitutional rights, regardless of any agreement he may sign with another party. Conversely, I don't think there is a Constitutional requirement forcing him to exercise those rights either. In other words, people can probably live according to fundamentalist religious laws if they so desire, to the extent that those laws do not require violation of state or federal laws, but they are free to stop doing it any time they please.


22 posted on 03/21/2006 2:51:50 PM PST by Sam Cree (absolute reality) - ("Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forty_years

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Orthodox and Roman Catholic monasteries around the country that have internal rules for monks/sisters that would never past muster if litigated in secular courts. Presumably canon law applies, and given the 1st Amendment protections, probably a lot could happen that the secular law would sanction without anyone being the wiser.

On the other hand, these outfits do not have a long history of using their facilities as concentration points for planning catastrophic attacks on their non-believing neighbors, nor holy books that require them to do so on pain of eternal damnation when their religious leader declares holy war.


23 posted on 03/21/2006 2:52:28 PM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isrul

"Al-Mustakillah"??

It's in the posting. You can't make these things up!


24 posted on 03/21/2006 2:53:53 PM PST by elcid1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: forty_years

I'm guessing NO WAY! This would absolutely run right into the "equal protection of the laws " clause of the XIV Amendment.


25 posted on 03/21/2006 2:54:13 PM PST by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forty_years

WE need to remember that the American colonies were largely founded by people seeking to establish religious communities free of the influence of state religious monopolies. For many years, that was a bedrock American value. However, in the last 50 years, secular liberalism has greatly diminished the right of people - particularly religious people - to found what are sometimes called "intentional communities," i.e., communities founded by people who want to create a community of like-minded people. So in this case, I think the Muslims are very much in an American tradition. What we cannot, allow, however, is to let them extend ANY authority over non-Muslims.


26 posted on 03/21/2006 3:01:21 PM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

HEAR HEAR>>>>>>


27 posted on 03/21/2006 3:07:57 PM PST by Yorlik803 ( A moose once bit my sister.Mind you, an moose bite can be pretty nasty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gritty

I got my kitbag, textbook, lead me to the station, I am off to the civil war. theres no easy way to be free.
The WHO.."Slip Kid"


28 posted on 03/21/2006 3:10:11 PM PST by Yorlik803 ( A moose once bit my sister.Mind you, an moose bite can be pretty nasty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian
How about an enclave where is proper to beat your wife if dinner is late, cold, otherwise unsatisfactory? Cut off her finger if she wears a ring? Where you can kill your daughter if you don't like her boyfriend? Or redeem the family honor by killing her is she is raped. All this and more is within Sharia law and is incompatible, I would think, with the whole thrust and structure of American law.
29 posted on 03/21/2006 3:11:56 PM PST by ArmyTeach (NOT ON MY WATCH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: forty_years
There are hundreds of religious fringe groups in the US - most of them claiming to practice one or another sort of "Christianity" - that order the affairs of their members in various sorts of restrictive ways.

It's hard to see how you could clamp down exclusively on one sort without interfering with others - whatever one first supposes to be uniquely disturbing about Radical Islam has it's counterpart.

We have groups that deny the legitimacy of secular law and deny the authority of the US government, groups that hope to impose the laws of their religion on everyone else, groups that have been associated with perpetrators of terrorist attacks, and so on - just about any sort of behavior we decry in "Islamic" enclaves has its counterpart in "American as Apple Pie" extremism that we find it more convent to tolerate than to suppress.

IMO If we are really worried about Islamic enclaves we might better spend some time trying to understand why Islam is increasingly attractive to Black and Hispanic Americans and attempt to subvert that appeal.

30 posted on 03/21/2006 3:25:42 PM PST by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

There is no such thing in America as a "state religious monopoly" that needs to be escaped from.

However it would be an explicit long term goal of these "communities of like minded people" to create one.

It's called ISLAM.


31 posted on 03/21/2006 3:27:11 PM PST by motorola7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: forty_years

Looks like we're gonna have to have a constitutional convention to declare islam to be an illegal, immoral, violent, racist cult, & is banned in all forms in the USA, as are its followers.

Along with this, our Christian & Jewish leaders need to declare islam a satanic cult, & take the lead in vilifying muslims as followers of satan. muslims should be shunned, ignored, & ostracized.

Our "leaders", left & right, are too busy sucking up to the muzzies to see the threat to our freedom, & will NEVER do anything to halt the spread of this evil.

Can some of you legal scholars out their explain how/why there is no Nazi party in the US? Is it an illegal org., & if so, how can we do the same to islam?

Here at FR, I'd like to see the Spell Checker drop the idea that words such as islam & muslim should be capitalized. This would be but a small way of showing our disdain & disgust.


32 posted on 03/21/2006 3:47:02 PM PST by Mister Da (Nuke 'em til they glow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

That's the analogy that immediately came to mind.

As long as Federal and state constitutional authorities are respected (Equal Protection, mandated education, age of consent laws, anti-polygamy laws) there won't be much Sharia left.

As there is not much Catholicism left in the Florida enclave.


33 posted on 03/21/2006 3:58:33 PM PST by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Maybe they're following the lead of the Catholics who wanted to form their own 'enclave' in Florida.

The difference would be that the Catholics would not be violating any state or federal laws. The Islamics would be, with their multiple wives, underage wives, beating of wives, divorce by proclamation of the husband, severe penalties for conversion from Islam.. (severe as in death) etc, etc.

The Catholics would be doing little more than enforcing some pretty strict zoning laws. The only thing the Catholics might be in trouble for would be if they only allowed Catholics to live there or only Roman Catholic churches to be established there, which I don't think was part of their plan. But that would be yet another violation (in this case of both the first amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses)

34 posted on 03/21/2006 4:11:07 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
What we cannot, allow, however, is to let them extend ANY authority over non-Muslims.

Oh over any Muslim (or former Muslim) who does not wish to submit to their barbaric rules, or over those too young to have a voice in the matter. Strict adherence to sharia law would mean they could "marry" underage girls, something for which Muslims in the US have already gone to jail over. (Nebraska of all places). These young girls would in all likelihood be the "4th wife", and would be cast away as soon as the "man" has put a few kids in them, and then tired of them.

35 posted on 03/21/2006 4:16:42 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Orthodox and Roman Catholic monasteries around the country that have internal rules for monks/sisters that would never past muster if litigated in secular courts.

Of course they would. As long at the brothers or sisters were free to leave, as I believe they are. (and there is no physical abuse) they are merely exercising their own freedom of religion and the right to contract.

But a mostly single sex community voluntarily living in isolation is a far cry from a growing community of men, women and children, using what would amount to the force of government to impose it's "laws" on those living in it.

36 posted on 03/21/2006 4:23:18 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gritty; Grampa Dave

Sure is!


37 posted on 03/21/2006 5:52:56 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

bookmark


38 posted on 03/21/2006 8:06:08 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Tolik; Travis McGee

important


39 posted on 03/21/2006 8:09:45 PM PST by King Prout (DOWN with the class-enemies at Google! LONG LIVE THE PEOPLE'S CUBE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forty_years
Islam as a religion cannot supercede the Constitution. If it could, then the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

Islam as a political entity cannot supercede the Constitution. The strictures of Sharia law deny people their "unalienable rights".

If Muslims want Sharia law to be supreme, they have to leave American jurisdiction when the Constitution is the Law of the Land.

The only ways left are to amend the Constitution, which is unlikely. Or overthrow the Constitutionally mandated form of government by force, which is treason.

40 posted on 03/21/2006 9:28:49 PM PST by etcetera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson