My FB friend Leah posted some blunt words about Islam from Alan West, recently elected to Congress. One of the commentors said he agreed, but then responded with a vigorous assertion of the American value of freedom of religion, even though he'd be happy to attack a hostile foreign Muslim entity.
He did not get the point, which was that Islam is not merely a "religion" the way that Buddhism or Presbyterianism is. It is, essentially and not by historical accident, an expansionist theocracy. As West points out, jihad is not an aberration but its natural logic and its historical pattern.
As I have said before, the Constitution forbids a state-sponsored legal bar to public office based on religion but in no way forbids the people from factoring in religion when they vote. Likewise, the Constitution forbids the Federal authority ("Congress") from establishing a state religious denomination AND from interfering with the free exercise of religion on the part of the people. Part of the free exercise of religion, if it has any meaning, includes public religious debate. It is not at all the role of the state to decide what kind of religious debate is acceptable and what is not. If a very traditional Christian debates a Buddhist and tells him that because he has not accepted Christ, he is going to hell, that is utterly constitutionally protected speech. If a Protestant minister, citing the history of Roman Catholicism, demands to be assured that a Catholic president will not be an agent of the Church of Rome in dominating the country, he has a perfect right to do so.
Nowadays the "hurt feelings" and "hate speech" culture gives the impression that free exercise means exercise without consequence or challenge. Groundless.
It is not respect for religious freedom, but either fear or laziness which prevents public and direct challenge of Islam.
Dennis Miller, a conservative political comedian and commentator, recently made a strong challenge precisely to so-called "moderate" Muslims for not dealing with their own Islamic problems. Amen to that. However, he prefaced it by saying that he didn't know much about Islam. Dude, it's on the internet. Get off your ass and read a little. As Colonel West did:
3 comments:
RE »the Constitution forbids a state-sponsored legal bar to public office based on religion but in no way forbids the people from factoring in religion when they vote.« But surely media priests can beguile people into accepting that the Constitution DOES forbid people from factoring in religion when they vote.
In fact I've seen grown journalists clearly imply that the Constitution forbids not voting for someone if the opinions of his that one doesn't like are "religious." This is done with such subtlety that one undderstands an exception can and should be made vis-a-vis conservative Christians whom one should vote against because their religiously held opinions violate the Constitution's separation of church and state (although the religiously held opinions of liberal Christians do not violate the Constitution's separation of church and state).
Voting against a Muslim because of his religiously held opinions violates the separation of church and state. Voting for a conservative Christian because of his religiously held opinions also violates the separation of church and state. What's not to understand here?
Voting against a Muslim because of his religiously held opinions violates the separation of church and state. Voting for a conservative Christian because of his religiously held opinions also violates the separation of church and state. What's not to understand here?
The separation of church and state is Jefferson's phrase, not the Constitution's. The Constitution regulates STATE establishment of or interference with religion. I am not the State. I can vote for or against a candidate based on religion.
As a voter, I cannot violate the First Amendment on this matter.
You're referring only to the written constitution. The unwritten constitution overrides the written constitution, and doesn't hesitate to do so, perhaps even preferring to do so in ways that are blatantly obviously objectively mistaken. The unwritten constitution is all the more powerful because nobody refers to it.
I don't agree with this arrangement. I'm only commenting value-neutrally.
Post a Comment