Posted on 06/02/2012 5:13:05 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
Plaintiffs in a Tennessee lawsuit want to deny local Muslims the right to build a mosque. Why? They claim it's not a legitimate faith and shouldn't be allowed First Amendment rights
It's unclear whether a procedural victory for opponents of a controversial Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, will delay or permanently enjoin completion of a mosque, under construction since last September. Equally unclear, without detailed knowledge of the facts, are the merits of Chancellor Robert Corlew's ruling that the planning commission had not provided proper public notice of the construction before granting a permit. But if this ruling is not a victory for bigotry (Corlew explicitly acknowledged the Islamic congregation's rights under the First Amendment and a federal statute), it is a victory for the bigots who opposed the mosque out of antipathy toward Islam and the idiotic claim that it is not a religion.
Mosque opponents effectively "put Islam on trial," KATV reports. At 2010 hearings, "a string of witnesses questioned whether Islam is a legitimate religion and promoted a theory that American Muslims want to replace the Constitution with extremist Islamic law and the mosque was a part of that plot."
These are not arguments; they're fantasies, and we have heard them all before, often from the same people who would conform constitutional rights (notably rights for gay people and women) to their understanding of biblical law. Still, the ignorance and un-self-conscious hypocrisy that underlies rants about Shariah law are breathtaking.
Here's how Joe Brandon, the plaintiff's attorney in the Tennessee case, explains opposition to the mosque: "This Shariah-compliant facility must show they are a religious organization, which we vehemently dispute. They are a political organization with Shariah-compliant rules and regulations. Shariah and the U.S. Constitution cannot coexist."
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
To the degree the Communism, or its alter ego, Marxism, and National Socialism are religions, I suppose Islam is a religion.
Islam is an ideology, an artificial construct created around a certain set of laws and interpretations of the words of a sun-crazed sand hermit, who would be clinically diagnosed today as a schizophrenic paranoic. It is no more to respected as a religion than, say, Scientology or Wicca.
Islam lacks a few prerequisites of being a true religion, in that they seem to have no equivalent in the various verses of the Koran or any of the Hadith oral traditions to anything like the “golden rule” or free will of mankind. It is no more of a real religion than the ritual slaughter of dozens or hundreds of peasants to assure a fertile harvest, based upon the divine right as defined by the priests.
There is a thin veneer of religion that is applied to Islam, but nothing disguises the fact that the ideology was spread by armed force, imposed upon captive populations, with always a choice of three being offered - convert to the tenets of this phony religion, become a subject and pay a tax to the ruler-priests which is a form of slavery called dhimmi, but without the privileges enjoyed by the converted and those born into the ideology, or suffer execution as an infidel. A lot of people ended up dying, much like happened in the French Revolution, when the ones who did not believe in the Revolution would not accept the premise of the bearded men with the burning eyes, that those not favored should die.
Another glaring fault of Islam, is that ALL females, whether they claim to be adherents of Islam or not, are all in the dhimmi class, essentially slaves to whatever Noble Islamic Gentlemen may be assigned as their “protector”, as father, elder uncles, brothers, or husbands. The female who does not behave strictly according to a capricious and ever-changing code, may be subject to sometimes highly disproportionate punishment, including death by stoning or beheading, or extreme mutilations, for even very small infractions. This in the name of “honor”, though any code of honor that countenances these measures as a means of control of females is a direct abridgement of true honor.
Schizophrenia is no longer a valid reason for organizing ANYTHING remotely resembling “religion”. Or should we elevate Charles Manson to the level of Prophet?
Tell the Muslims to go back and re-write the Koran so there is some semblence of respect for their fellow (non-Islamic) man, and remove all the references to spreading their religion by threat of death or enslavement.
Islam does not respect the practice of any religion, not even that wobbly artifice based on the Koran, but they do employ the words and invoke some form of supernatural diety to give rationalization for their acts of terror and assymmetrical warfare against other human beings and institutions.
The framers doubtless never intended to protect a “religion” whose chief goal is to supplant the Constitution;... The framers, at about this time, saw Mooselimbs as they were (are) brigands, thieves and extortionists who enslaved, killed and ransomed our ships. Jefferson’s Koran was used by him to understand the maniacal hate they had towards the West and themselves and anyone else.
From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:
A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]”
—Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
—An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)
“Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.”
—Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”
“The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.”
Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:
“O’ my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you... Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.”
—Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31
Please point to the wording in the First Amendment where the Founders, so knowledgeable of Islam, excluded it from free exercise.
Religion definition:
1. beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
To any reasonable person, Islam obviously meets each of these definitions. Thus it is a religion.
What you really mean is not that Islam is not a religion, it is that it is a dangerous and evil religion. I quite agree.
But where is it written that religions cannot be dangerous or evil, or that they cease to be religions when they are?
Do you really want the government making the decision which religions are good (deserving of protection) and which are bad (not deserving), such as those that oppose abortion rights and equality for gay people?
Are you aware that thru most of American colonial and national history, very large sections of the American population saw Catholicism, with some justification, as a religion that was as incompatible with the American system as many now view Islam?
If so, one would think they indicated somewhere that the establishment clause isn’t an infinitely “big tent”. It must be in there somewhere in a fashion that cannot be gainsaid.
That's what the Preamble and the Bill of Rights are for.
Islam is a criminal conspiracy aimed at the destruction of our Constitution.
Good posts. I think that Bill Federer put it succinctly when he said that Islam is a religion, a political system, AND a military system. None of the three legs of this unholy stool can be removed. Therefore, allowing Islam in the United States is actually treasonous.
"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".
William Eaton, US Consul to Tunis, wrote in 1799:
"Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives…The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…"
Alexis de Tocqueville:
"I studied the Kuran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
John Quincy Adams wrote:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.
Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adams's capital letters)… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men."
John Quincy Adams who wrote in 1829:
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".
Theodore Roosevelt wrote:
“The Greeks who triumphed at Marathon and Salamis did a work without which the world would have been deprived of the social value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because the victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.”
“During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence. There are such "social values" today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do - that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.”
Winston Churchill:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
G.K. Chesterton:
There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. . . . A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude if lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets.
Andre Servier, 1922 wrote:
“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was - and it remains - incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”
And how about this quote from Ayatollah Khomeini from 1942:
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world….
THOSE WHO KNOW NOTHING OF ISLAM PRETEND THAT ISLAM COUNSELS AGAINST WAR. THOSE [WHO SAY THIS] ARE WITLESS. ISLAM SAYS KILL ALL THE UNBELIEVERS JUST AS THEY WOULD KILL YOU ALL!
Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].
Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says
WHATEVER GOOD THERE IS EXISTS THANKS TO THE SWORD AND IN THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD! PEOPLE CANNOT BE MADE OBEDIENT EXCEPT WITH THE SWORD! THE SWORD IS THE KEY TO PARADISE, WHICH CAN BE OPENED ONLY FOR HOLY WARRIORS!
There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight.
DOES ALL THAT MEAN THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION THAT PREVENTS MEN FROM WAGING WAR I SPIT UPON THOSE FOOLISH SOULS WHO MAKE SUCH A CLAIM.”
Actually - those prohibitions exist in every state constitution today also. Most states couldn’t come into the Union unless they adopted them. If a State Constitution prohibits it, then every agency of the state is bound by the same limitations, which includes Counties, and cities.
Though you attempt a passionate defense, and strive to show the difficulty of resolving the conundrum of Islam and the constitution, let me try and help with a couple of items:
1.) Consider for a moment how the Constitution would deal with, say, the Aztec Religion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_religion
By the arguments set forth, this could be construed as a fully legal religion, complete with Constitutionally protected rituals and practices. Precedents exist which allow for what is normally considered illegal activity to be considered legal within the framework of a “religions ceremony.” Why not human sacrifice?
2.) As has been stated many times, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” This obviously states that at some point, a little common sense has to be applied. While it is plain that there are a multitude of black-robed fiends on the bench who have none of this seemingly essential ingredient for jurisprudence (Nearly all appointed by ‘rats. Go figure...), and ‘judge shopping’ has resulted in some ridiculous decisions and precedents, it is plain that there exists some latitude in judgement. Some “religions” are obviously not treated the same, even though they may fit the bona-fide criteria of a religion.
Islam delenda est. It is a cult, like the Thugees, and should be eradicated as such. Treating it as a religion is to demean all other religions, for it invites their, and our destruction.
The “Free Exercise Clause” states that Congress cannot “prohibit the free exercise” of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute.
They have banned polygamy (and by extension, polyandry, “multiple husbands”), the Court reasoning that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice.
However, in a recent decision, the SCOTUS decided that religious freedom includes the right to sacrifice animals.
The Court stated that “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one’s belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote. Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.
This shows how very tenuous these SCOTUS precedents are.
To make matters worse, the federal government has long recognized special religious indicators for particular religions, erected in public places. For example, Jewish “Eruv” boundaries may, with permission, be erected in public places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
And because Jewish religious law is extensively compatible with western secular law, a courtesy has been extended to Jews who wish to decide their civil cases in a Jewish law court.
However, Jewish religious law is very reasonable, Sharia law is not, nor is it standardized, and often it is in variance with secular law, and downright unfair, whimsical and prejudicial. So there is no real comparison.
And much the same problem is applicable to Islam. It does not distinguish between religious and secular authority, it rejects all other forms of law and government, and it is firm in its idea of “Islamic supremacy”.
Likewise it embraces abhorrent practices condemned by the rest of the world, and even hypocritically, by some of the Islamic nations where they are still widely practiced.
As such, it is a philosophy with some religious elements, which should be granted no more courtesy than the practices of the Thuggee (stranglers), or criminal Mafias hiding behind a facade of national liberation struggles.
The Aztec religion is indeed a legitimate religion under the Constitution. Certain of its traditional practices, of course, would be illegal despite having a religious motivation.
BTW, many practices of the Aztec religion form part of the syncretistic religious practices of Mexican immigrants. Thus the “Aztec religion” is presently being practiced in the USA, to some considerable extent. I have sometimes wondered if the appalling murder and mutilation by the drug cartels in Mexico might be related to cultural traditions evolving from the ancient practices of the Aztecs and other Mexican peoples.
Similarly, Islam is indeed a religion and cannot be banned. Certain practices some of its adherents claim are part of the religion, such as slavery, child marriage, blowing up the neighbors, etc. are illegal despite the religious motivation.
Religions cannot be and should not be banned. This does not mean certain “religious” practices are not illegal and should be punished accordingly.
Your “judges using common sense” to override the plain words of the Constitution is exactly how we got to where we are. Your “common sense” may require abortion on demand and gay marriage. Mine, not so much.
Oh, the WORDS are there, but not the spirit. In the eyes of the Noble Isamic Gentlemen, if the other upon whom the good works are bestowed is not ALSO a Noble Islamic Gentleman, then the application is not necessary. There is an institutional blindness within the practice of this ideology, that only the favored ones are real humanity, the rest of the world who are NOT Islamic and male are inherently inferior, and no reciprocity need be extended to them.
The “golden rule” is meant to extend to ALL people, not just the favored ones. Else why would Islam condone the practice of holding dhimmi at the lower level of actual slaves, or demand the execution of the kafir, the unbelievers? This is certainly not the practice of any “golden rule”, as no Noble Islamic Gentleman would permit this equality before the eyes of his peers.
Look up "Vril Society" and "Thule Society" for further detail.
anyone, in this country, with blood pressure should already know and understand why islam will not work here by now
if they don’t, they should be made to leave with them
The passages you have listed in post 23 are directions for muslim to muslim behaviour.
There are completely different rules for muslim to kafir or muslim to the rest of the world behaviour.
Islam IS a religion. However, it is much MORE than that. It does not allow for the separation of church and government; they are one and the same. So how does one reconcile Islam with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?
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.