Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/
XXXXX
Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.
Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him
Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him
Bill Federer calls Islam a “religious system” while I always defined Islam as a political movement. Federer points out something that I never considered: Islam is also a “political-military system”.
One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.
Federer is slightly off course on this one:
Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.
Our federal government does not have worldwide authority, but our Congress and our Courts do have the authority to define Islam as a political movement. To date, our LAWYERS promoted to the bench lacked the courage to face the threat from Islam. Perhaps Federer’s “political-military” definition will put some starch in their backbones. After all, the Constitution already protects Americans from Islam when the Constitution is enforced; so nobody is asking lawyers to legislate the same way 7 lawyers legislated infanticide.
Violating the 1st Amendment by forcing every American to support the Socialist religion with tax dollars was bad enough, but allowing Muslims to kill Americans in order to advance their political movement disguised as a religion is high treason. Both Congress and the SCOTUS have stood by for decades well-knowing what is happening. So it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS and/or Congress will do anything about it now.
A Course Change Is Unlikely
A Course Change Is Unlikely
Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:
Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”
Finally, I have no use for the United Nations, or for its Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they have to be paid for with tax dollars. There is a long list of logical reasons for scrapping the United Nations. This excerpt adds Islam to the list —— not because Muslims rejected the UN’s Declaration, but because Muslims despise the very Rights our Constitution guarantees:
The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:
Freedom of opinion and expression
Freedom to change religions
Right to education
No slavery
No forced marriages
No torture
No inhumane punishment
Freedom to change religions
Right to education
No slavery
No forced marriages
No torture
No inhumane punishment
The leaders of 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:
The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:
the death penalty for those leaving Islam
punishing women who are victims of rape
allowing men to be polygamous
permitting wife beating
censoring speech insulting Islam
punishing women who are victims of rape
allowing men to be polygamous
permitting wife beating
censoring speech insulting Islam
The answer to this question is YES:
Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech?
The answer to this question is NO because a political movement is not a religion:
Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion?
The answer to this question is obviously YES:
Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?
It all comes down to one thing. No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution. The two are incompatible. Irrespective of Islam’s inherent brutality, rejecting the evils of theocracy is more than enough reason to answer YES to the title question:
Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
Posted By Bill Federer On 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pm
Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
Posted By Bill Federer On 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pm
Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
Please read Bill Federer’s entire piece to get so much more than I excerpted. He includes a lot about our Constitution, and details about Muslim slavery dating back to the 1600s.