Monday, October 15, 2007

Why America Must Define Religion

Does our American Constitution, which offers blanket and unquestioning protection of religious freedom, create the very means by which the destruction of American sovereignty can be accomplished?

When America was founded no one thought it was necessary to define the concept of religion. To this day America has failed to define what is or is not a religion.

We must focus upon questioning the adequacy of our American Constitution (specifically the two clauses of the First Amendment concerning the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause).

How can it be unconstitutional for government to establish a religion when the constitution hasn’t even defined religion? And isn’t it important to define religion so as to determine whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes?

Here’s a typical outmoded definition of religion as found in Wikipedia:

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

But what if some religions believe that their religious law must be the only law of the land? How can America deal with a political system (inimical to American freedoms) that is hidden inside a religion?

According to deported terrorist Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris

Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God. . . . No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism — which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors, and details of living.

In January 2007 Faultline USA posted An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”. This article presents the case for a constitutional amendment.

In December 2006, Faultline USA suggested a proposed amendment to the Constitution in the article Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution?

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!"

Let us all begin to discuss this issue!

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

H/T to Right Truth for this: The BEAR (Rob Neppell) of TTLB and Porkbusters, has a new paying gig, Kithbridge. Check out Internet Radio Network's Video Blog

politics, christianity, current affairs, science, islam, culture, news, government, law, congress

Trackposted to, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, The Populist, DragonLady's World, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, The World According to Carl, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


  1. Back when the Constitution was written, Scientology would have been a weird concept.

    And thoughts that Eastern-centric religion would be making inroads would also not have occurred to our Founding Fathers.

    Good should inspire some thinking.

    And hopefully, some action?

  2. Thoughtful post Faultline, this will require some of the best minds in the country to resolve, but it needs to be done.

  3. And Islam, of course, should be de-classified as a religion and be classified as a dangerous ideology right up there with Nazism, Communism, and fascism. Problem is, our country as become too foolishly PC to recognize that need.

  4. Islam is no more a religion than Communism or Vegetarianism. The Quran is in fact nothing more than a book on military conduct, with a few Allahs thrown in to confuse the enemy, the kafirs (you and me).

    If Hitler had simply called himself an Ayatollah and asked his Panzer divisions to point to Mecca five times a day, would we have simply said we cannot attack the Nazis because we must respect their religion? That we must be tolerant of any religion no matter how much it demands the destruction of our way of life?

  5. Excellent. America has never had the NEED to define religion. Also I think Douglas V. Gibbs makes a good point about Islam. However, if we start splitting hairs, we would have to start defining "religion" vs "cult" vs "occult" vs "terrorist group" vs ....

    That might get to be too big a task for some to handle.

    Islam is considered a religion already (whether we all agree or not), so we are left to deal with it that way.

  6. You can't define religion definitively, it's a slippery concept and the definition will change from person to person.

    "Islam is no more a religion than Communism"

    If involves worshipping a diety I'd call it a religion. That doesn't mean it's a worthwhile or admirable set of beliefs (almost none of them are).

  7. Thank you Faultline for another important article.
    We are in a new kind of war with a new kind of enemy and we don't yet seem capable of defining them. Isn't there something terribly absurd about this situation?

    Whether it's our appeasing Congress, the mayor of New York, or even our own military, we seem to be caught in a Catch-22. We are so concerned about not offending someone's religion that we are losing sight of the battlefield.

    I like your idea of an amendment to the Constitution, although given today's current PC climate, I don't know what chance it would have of becoming a reality.

    I like the idea of not even attempting to define a religion, but rather enforcing the laws that are already on the books about seditious speech. Also, clamping down on these Islamic Organizations using the same RICO statutes we used so successfully against the Mob.

    I think we already have the means to fight back, but we seem to lack the will. I hate to say this, but I really do think that it will take some new major "event" to finally bring us to our senses.

  8. surprise the left hasn't come in called you a bigot or something.

    The thing is, you are right. Islam has not "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" philosophy.

    Instead as noted above, it requires a symbiotic relationship between mosque and state.

    At some point in the future, if American's still value their freedom, immigration from Muslim countries will be cut off.

  9. "Immigration from Muslim countries will be cut off." I agree with Bryan 100%. This is just the first thing we have to do.
    But will we ever do it? That's the question.

  10. I agree with Bernie. At some point you have to draw a line. While perhaps you can't define religion definitively as Jose says, you can point out a religion that's evil instead of good. Anyone here think Satanism should be dealt with as a reasonable religion since it is considered a religion already?

  11. Sorry I didn’t get back until now to respond to these great comments. Basically I agree that some attempts to define religion could create a big mess, but any time we fail to define something, then anything can claim to be that something. Failure to define means that we don’t know what we are talking about.

    The left’s primary MO has always been to expand inclusiveness into infinity – this includes the left’s penchant to expand definitions of anything until that thing embraces all that exists – including its own opposite.

    Perhaps we need to be looking at defining what doesn’t qualify as a religion with regard to the relationship of government to religion in the American constitution – the First Amendment?

  12. Awww….once again my trackbacks aren’t properly getting to several of the blogs to which I attempted trackbacks. Either they only show the part where I list the trackbacked blogs (which is at the bottom of my blog entry — the text of the entry seems to get skipped) or the trackback does not show up at all. So once again I’m leaving a comment with the information for whatever it’s worth. My latest blog entry is entitled:

    Tin Men — Freaks For Industry!
    and can be read at

  13. It is necessary to focus on the fact that an integral part of izlam is politcal dominance. This makes it a political machine, much like the Communist party which we outlawed in this country many years ago. We should outlaw izlam for exactly the same reason, because it seeks the overthrow of our Constitutional form of government. The fact that there is a religious element to izlam is irrelevant; it is political and it is bent on world domination that matters.

    There is only one solution to the muzlim problem and that is total separation from Western society. This means that every last muzlim must be removed from the West, every one of them. Some will say, "Can't the moderate muzlims stay?" The answer is, "No, they all have to go."

    The reason that they all have to go is because of two points:

    1. The fact that they have a religious imperative to dominate the world;

    2. One of the basic tenets of izlam is to lie whenever it is advantageous for izlam. This means that we can never be able to trust muzlims, even the so-called moderate muzlims, because we must remember that they are mandated to lie to us. There is simply no honor code to serve as a basis for dealing with them. They will freely lie to us, and we deceive ourselves to think otherwise.

    We must be separated totally from izlam if Western society is to be safe.