An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

The Keith Ellison swearing-in controversy continues to rage. The focus of this controversy should not be about which holy book should or should not be used, or if and when any book should be used, but rather it should 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). 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?

Amendment I
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.

Read closely the words of deported terrorist linked 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.

Here’s the bio on the deported Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris:
Former professor and director of the Research Center at the Institute of Islamic & Arab Sciences
Jaafar Sheikh Idris was a professor of Islamic Studies and the director of the Research Center at the Institute of Islamic & Arab Sciences (IIAS) in Fairfax, Virginia. The IIAS wasa nonprofit educational institution affiliated with the Wahhabist al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Idris was also the president of American Open University in Alexandria, Virginia. Idris was deported in January 2004, along with 15 others affiliated with the IIAS, during a massive crackdown on Saudi extremism within the United States. He also founded the Islamic Foundation of America.
The IIAS was shut down by federal authorities on July 1, 2004 because of its links to terrorism.

Read the words of Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

I submit that the corollary to Blackmun’s statement might go like this:

(1) When a government fails to define what constitutes a religion it conveys a message to all that any ideology can pass for religion, and that freedom of religious expression supercedes all other freedoms and overrules all duties of government – specifically the primary duty of government to protect its citizens from harm.

(2) When a government fails to define what constitutes a religion, any ideology with intent to destroy the very constitutional protections it enjoys can hide in plain view while actively undermining the very system of government that gives it protection.

Read What is a Religion?

Here’s an excerpt:

If it is unconstitutional to establish a religion, then it might sometimes be important to determine whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes. For example, Malnak v Yogi (3rd Cir.) considered whether SCI/TM (scientific creative intelligence/transcendental meditation), offered as an elective course in New Jersey public schools, was a religion. If so, offering such a course--even on an elective basis--might be unconstitutional. Those challenging the course produced evidence that instructors told students that "creative intelligence is the basis of all growth" and that getting in touch with this intelligence through mantras is the way to "oneness with the underlying reality of the universe." They also pointed out that students received personal mantras in puja ceremonies that include chanting and ritual. On the other hand, supporters of the course showed that SCI/TM put forward no absolute moral code, had no organized clergy or observed holidays, and had no ceremonies for passages such as marriage and funerals. Is SCI/TM a religion? Judge Adams of the Third Circuit applied these three criteria before answering the question in the affirmative:
1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.

2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.

3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.

Unfortunately our constitution was not designed to deal with a religion that is also a system of laws (Sharia) as well as a system of government that is inimical to the American Constitution.

Read: The Saudi Arabian Legal and Social Structure is Examined

Excerpt:
By way of the Establishment Clause, the United States has built a system that inherently creates a certain degree of separation between religion and state.47 This degree of separation should not be taken for granted. For example, countries operating under Shar'ia, or Islamic Law, have little to no separation between religion and state, leaving most Islamic nations under a theocratic type of government.48 In order to make a valid comparison of the different degrees of separation and the role it plays in society, a basic understanding of the Islamic legal and social structure must be achieved.

Last month I suggested a proposed amendment to the Constitution in my article Keith Ellison, Islam, American Sovereignty : Should we Amend the Constitution?

Here’s an excerpt:

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!

Today's "Someday We'll Laugh" Open Trackback

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Don Surber, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightwing Guy, Outside the Beltway, Faultline USA, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Permalink: An “Honest” Terrorist Writes: “No Muslim Can Pledge Loyalty to the Constitution”

http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/01/honest-terrorist-writes-no-muslim-can.html

Trackback URL:

http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/949305242336885084

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!!!