Friday, December 01, 2006

Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution?

The issue of Rep. Keith Ellison’s decision to be sworn into office on the Koran debate is still raging in the blogosphere. Regardless of whether or not a U. S. Representative is or is not required to swear on anything, and because Ellison himself brought it up, this is an important issue that must be addressed.

Is this an issue of religious freedom, as protected under the constitution, or is this an issue of national tradition and cultural unity? The answer is that it is both. One of the first lessons I learned in seminary is that you cannot divorce religion from culture. Every religion carries with it the mark of the culture that gave it birth. Either religions will adapt to cultural change, or the culture will adapt to religious change. Change one and you change the other. It’s as simple and as complex as that.

This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. The left is very fond of revisionist history and tells us that because our founding fathers were primarily Diests, they would have welcomed into this religious freedom any ideology that claims to pass for religion. Well, those Diests adhered to Judeo-Christian principles and they would not have gotten very far without the support of the Christian people who pioneered this country. Our nation’s founders never envisioned a time when issues of religious freedom would extend very far beyond differences in Judeo-Christain sects and denominations. They could not have envisioned such a dilemma when the constitution was written.

None the less, we are now a pluralistic country with many competing religions. So the question has to do with national unity, national sovereignty, national tradition vs. personal freedom, and what constitutes a religious test?

One Country Voice has written a good article “Article VI of the Constitution states: “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It seems like everyone is just seeing the words “no religious test” and NOT reading the rest of the sentence!!”

Kobayashi Maru presented a very thought-provoking article which asks: “How long can we continue to exist as a nation when the fundamental basis on which public officials agree to uphold the responsibilities of office is allowed to vary based on each person's point of view?”

Perhaps it’s time for a constitutional amendment?

I submit for example: “No person shall hold any office or public Trust under the United States who adheres to or gives allegiance to any religion, ideology, or organization which by word, nature, association, or action has shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States!”

If we had such an amendment to our constitution, Islam would come under direct scrutiny. Why, you ask?

This is from an interesting article, “The Koran Commands Endless 911's”:

“The Koran Chapter Sura 9:29-30 states clearly, “Make War on the Christians and the Jews...Do battle with them!” “Kill those who join other Gods with Allah wherever ye shall find them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert to Islam then let them go their way.” (Koran Sura 9:5) For this you shall be rewarded with eternal paradise in Heaven with Allah, crystal clear streams, 72 virgins, wine without side effects, and the Garden of Eden forever. (Koran Sura 56). The Koran clearly and expressly commands all of the 1.3 billion Muslim people to engage in Holy War, Jihad, to conquer the world for Islam, for Allah. (Everyman, The Koran, Translated from the Arabic by J.M. Rodwell, J.M. Dent, Orion Publishing Group, London, 1994).”

Why not read the book, Islam Will Conquer All Other Religions And American Power Will Diminish : Read How Allah (God's) Prediction Will Soon Come To Pass (Paperback) by Mohamed Azad and Bibi Amina

Read Zawahiri: "The Reinstatement Of Islamic Rule … Is The Individual Duty Of Every Muslim … With Every Land Occupied By Infidels."

Visit Project Open Book: Documenting the Persecution of Christians in the Islamic World

Read About the about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law in Answering Islam.

Wing-Nuts and Loose Bolts

The left, in their ever cutesy and demeaning fashion, have taken to calling conservatives “Wing-Nuts.” Now if we think about it, the actual use of a wing-nut is to keep bolts from flying off into space. And as we all know, the left is full of very spacey free-flying loose bolts. Be proud Wing-nuts, we keep this Nation held together!

Here are some typical Loose Bolt comments on the Ellison debate from the Taylor Marsh “LB” blog on the “LB” Huffington Post. . .

“Can you imagine what a stink this would raise should a wiccan be elected to office.I can see it now, religious talking heads yapping on and on about the pro-wiccan agenda they are trying to promote.”

Our Answer: Yes it just might raise a little stink among the “religious talking heads”!

“Every American should be free to choose which work of fiction he or she places a hand upon when taking an oath.”

Our “Here’s your life after death answer”:

(Oh, you didn’t see anything? Get used to it.)

This is from a blogger, The Buddhist, who gives Buddhism a very undeserved bad name:

"What the f--k? Are these Babble thumpers morons for real? . . .Since when has our country be run by hillbilly Christians who treat the Bible like a fetish? Enough of these jerks. We the people need to tell the little brats to go home and take their black leather Bibles with them. What part of, "Get your sorry religion out of the religions of other decent Americans" don't they understand?”

Our answer: Not only have you failed Buddhism 101, you haven't got a clue as to what a decent American is!!!

14 comments:

  1. Excellent thought provoking article.

    I love the idea of a constitutional amendment, but of course, the honest application of its intent would be impossible. The current dominance of leftist pluralistic views (like the ones that cherry-pick passages of the Koran to show that it is a religion of peace) would still figure out how to accept even the most perverse or subversive of religions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent article!! Unfortunately, anonymous is right, it would NEVER be allowed..especially in light of this Democratic congress!!

    We do need to wake up...the politically correct BS will continue to control our Country until we are no more if we are not careful!! It will take WE THE PEOPLE to start illiciting change!

    I have written another article to compliment yours and have trackbacked to you! Keep up the great work!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that is both but you can ignore the current events of the middle east to force that issue. Most American’s will fight that simply because of the current event’s.

    It’s bad political medicine if Mr. Ellison tries to force this. Political suicide will be the end results.

    The majority of the world view the Quran as a tool of excuses to commit murder of innocent people. You can’t simply toss that aside and think no one will notice that. Look at Iraq. Shiites and Sunnies kill each other and both sides defend themselves by using the Quran to justify murder.

    If Mr. Ellison expects to be taken as an American, he must act American. He hasn’t shown one ounce of regret that his book is used as a tool of murder by others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems to me that the proposed amendment would disqualify many of the so-called Christian candidates, as well.

    For that matter, is not the attempt to apply religious tests to public office undermining the sovereignty of the country? The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    How does a religious test not fall under that? Alternatively, if one wishes to take the position that, "Congress" does not make constitutional amendments, but rather the people, does not an attempt directly to contravene a constitutional concept amount to undermining sovereignty in favor of religious opinions?

    Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Z you brought us some very good points which, of course, are subject to interpretation.
    The issue that I brought forth in proposing an amendment would not be a religious test of any person or candidate with regard to any legitimate religion to which they belong, but it would deal with what qualifies as a legitimate religion in so much as any religion, ideology, or organization would be disqualified from legitimacy if it had shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States.

    I submitted for example: “No person shall hold any office or public Trust under the United States who adheres to or gives allegiance to any religion, ideology, or organization which by word, nature, association, or action has shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States!”

    I agree to what the First Amendment states, but I also see that our constitution is not a sacred God-written text that cannot be changed by amendment if a serious flaw renders our nation incapable of defending itself from religions, ideologies, or organizations that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

    You seem to have a problem with “so-called Christian” candidates. Well if you can show what “so-called Christian” religion has shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States, please let us know. There may be numerous cults, sects, and, yes, even “so-called Christian” denominations that might not pass the sniff test. If they have shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States, “so-called Christian” or not, they would not be legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don’t think we need a Constitutional amendment. I’m not much for jumping on the amendment bandwagon to solve every problem we face. I think we can handle this with existing laws if we would bother to enforce them. Inciting others to riot or acts of violence is a crime. Yes we do have free speech but it’s the old “yelling fire in a movie house” argument: your free speech ends when you cause bodily harm to others.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I could not support a Constitutional Amendment like this. I'm not certain it would pass legal muster anyway. But, the dialog that such a proposesd amendment would generate would be interesting indeed to listen to.

    During the 1960 Presidential election, Christian voices across the land warned over and over that if John Kennedy were elected, as a Catholic the Pope would be the real president. Well, he was elected, and the Pope did not rule the White House.

    A lot of what has made this nation great has been it's willingness to accept alien cultures and assimilate them into the American culture. I have no worries that this will happen with the so called Muslim "invasion" also. You asked me, "What if I'm wrong?" Well, what if I'm right? That question seems just as fair.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dusty, it’s tempting to relate the 1960’s debates over John F. Kennedy and the Pope to debates about Islam. There was quite a lot of Protestant paranoia against Catholicism back then. It was paranoia because Catholicism had not participated in a world-dominating crusade in quite a few centuries. In 1960, there were not massive numbers of Catholics committing atrocious acts of terrorism around the world. Catholicism was part of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. You wrote “I have no worries that this will happen with the so called Muslim "invasion" also.” I invite you to go to some of the links I provided in the article and actually read them. If you still feel a sense of complacency after reading them, please share with us the name of the sleeping pills you are taking!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I posted on this as well...allegiance is what this is all about and the symbolism as well..great piece!

    ReplyDelete
  10. you know I'm surprised a lot of people weren't worried people like Trent Lott and other bigots getting elected to office. If the country stayed true to "national tradition" we would still be killing Native Americans and hanging African Americans.

    Yes, the analysis on religion and culture is correct, but religion has ALWAYS been used as a tool to favor certain political policy, reference teaching Catholicism to "civilize" while extracting unequal resources from Third World countries (Philippines, South America, Puerto Rico, Indochina)

    Please, here's to Mr. Ellison to ensure religious freedom for all and not for the priviledged some.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Although I'm not an American Citizen (Canadian, Eh?) I like the idea of this amendment and think we should do the same thing!

    Are we (the West) more enlightened because we toss our founder's ideologies out the window? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anomymous:

    Are you serious??? “here's to Mr. Ellison to ensure religious freedom for all and not for the priviledged some.” In what fantasy world do you live where you think that adherents to Islam will ensure religious freedom for all??? Perhaps you don’t understand that the Islamic faithful cannot ensure religious freedom for all because it goes completely against their command to create a world-wide Islamic Caliphate???

    EvilSupaFly
    Thanks for your support of the idea of an amendment in Canada as well as the USA. Let’s keep the idea afloat!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous:

    The following issue can destroy your anonymous comments; study it thoroughly to see if there is any truth to it.
    1. Comments are usually brief – usually not more than a few (6 or less) paragraphs.
    2. If you wish to write an essay, please go to Blogger and get your own free blog.
    3. I have chosen not to delete your extremely lengthy comments this time in the interest of giving our readers a variety of opinions.
    4. The is a commandment – Don’t leave long comments again or they will be promptly removed!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I love the heart and purpose of this idea. I want to say that I'm not sure this would work. BC it COULD be (imo) interpreted wrongly against Christians (or other faiths - though I'm pretty sure the ppl who in an approaching pickle here are ppl practicing Judeo Christian principles).

    Like so "which by word, nature, association, or action has shown intent to undermine the sovereignty of these United States" Now REASONABLE ppl know that's EXACTLY what Islam is about (though MOST w/a public platform want to say "only some extremists", it IS what Islam is about. Assimilate or eradicate. I don't know of any other faith system with this mandate. Most faiths engender life, Islam death.

    The concern I have is with the ppl who are NOT REASONABLE (look at Washington today) I am saddened to say that I see a day approaching fairly quickly, where those same ppl would define Christianity & Jewish faiths as a threat. It's not reasonable. But the left doesn't use logic. They use mantras, talking points, hyperbole, personalization and defamation.

    I believe that we need something. I just believe what we need is going to cost us something. Great post. Sorry to be long...

    ReplyDelete

Follow faultlineusa on Twitter