By Douglas V. Gibbs
Outrage over the plans to build a mosque, complete with minaret, a couple blocks from "Ground Zero" in New York has erupted; but in reality, considering the nature of Islam is bent of worldwide domination, and conquering nations from within through the incremental establishment of Sharia Law, there should be outrage over every mosque built in the United States. The presence of mosques in America, especially after 9/11, is akin to Empire of Japan Educational Centers being erected on our soil after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Islam is a violent political ideology that masquerades as a religion. It calls itself the "Religion of Peace," admitting in its own writings that peace can only be achieved when Islam conquers the world and no opposition remains. Understand, the problem is not the people who have been deceived by the false religion of Islam. The problem is Islam. The ideology is the danger, and it must not be allowed to advance its agenda any further.
Recognizing the dangerous tenets of Islam, I believe it is absolutely critical for us to disallow the erection of mosques in the United States. If a mosque is allowed to be erected, I believe it is imperative that a minaret is not erected with the mosque. Minarets are a symbol of conquest, and as Call Me Mom has indicated in a comment, the land upon which a mosque is erected is considered "charitably gifted to Allah to be held in trust by the followers of Islam in perpetuity."
The Muslim doctrine Call Me Mom refers to is "waqif," and it is as real as the danger perpetuated by the terrorists that are working to spread Islam worldwide. With that in mind, is it reasonable for cities to allow the building of mosques? After all, considering that the property beneath mosque at that point is considered by Muslims to be "Muslim land," should U.S. cities have the authority to cede the sovereignty of the United States of America in the form of the piece of ground that the mosque resides upon?
For those that refuse to recognize the obvious, and instead insist that Islam is a peaceful religion that only desires acceptance in our diverse population, the argument heads for the concept of religious freedom.
Fleeing from the Church of England, the Pilgrims came to America specifically to find religious freedom. The First Amendment addresses religious freedom in its first part, designed to protect religion from government. People of faith cherish the concept of religious freedom in America, and this is why it is difficult to even consider refusing to allow an Islamic mosque to be erected. We wish to honor religious freedom for all religions. . . and the Muslims know it.
A comment by a liberal reader of this site on my article titled Stopping Muslim Minarets, in fact, suggests that my opinion on this matter of mosques in the United States is contradictory to my belief in the Constitutional concept of religious freedom. He wrote: "They shouldn't be able to build a mosque? So 'freedom of religion' only applies to the religions that you approve of? So the government should be able to dictate what a private party does on land they own? You are a contradictory loon... you know that.. right? And of course.. the dumbest person on the planet."
Rather than lower myself to the usual levels of lunacy that Tom loves to steep to, I would prefer to determine what the law says. The law, of course, would be the "Law of the Land," or as you may more easily recognize it, The U.S. Constitution.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . "
Reading the original writings of the Founding Fathers that were at the Constitutional Convention, which include, but are not limited to, Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalists Papers, it becomes apparent that the amendment applies to the federal government - hence, the words "Congress shall make no law."
During the years preceding the American Revolution, and in the infancy of this nation, all of the states, except Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, were theocracies. The states maintained that all society was held to be ordained by God as a check upon the impulses of depraved human nature, and therefore that all politics should ideally be directed to the ends prescribed by God. Though the intent was no doubt righteous, the danger of theocratic government systems is the same danger that lies in any system or organization maintained by a power structure that has men in firm control. In other words, theocracies have just as much of a risk of becoming a statist system as any other form of government that does not properly divide, and carefully limit, the authorities of the system.
The Founding Fathers, however, knew that if this nation was to stand the test of time, the States must maintain their sovereignty, and the limits against the power structure must apply at the federal level. State government is closer to the people, and therefore can be more easily maintained by the people. If a state chooses to pass certain legislation, then the people have the choice to change it, live with it, or move to a state that is more in line with their beliefs. If a federal government chooses to pass certain legislation, the entire nation is forced to live under the mandate.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were two of the primary voices behind the limiting principles of the new American Government. Though Thomas Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention, his recommendations and council was. The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786 was the state law that thrust Thomas Jefferson into the limelight as a defender of religious freedoms. The Danbury Baptists in Connecticut were under the thumb of the Puritans. The only way to vote, or hold office, in that State was if you were a Puritan. Therefore, the Baptists felt as if they were a minority that was being discriminated against.
After a series of letters to the federal government, and receiving no assistance, the Danbury Baptists, based on their knowledge of Jefferson's Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, were enthusiastic over Jefferson's win of the presidency in 1800 because, they figured, if anyone was going to help them against the Puritan theocracy in Connecticut, it would be Jefferson.
The Danbury Baptists wrote a letter congratulating Jefferson on his win, and then pleaded to him for assistance in their plight. However, Jefferson's response indicated that the federal government was unable to help. It was a State issue, and the there was a wall of separation that did not allow the federal government to dictate to the States what they may do in regards to religion.
Opponents of religious freedom have manipulated the meaning of this letter to mean that government, any level government in the U.S., could not have any dealings with religion in any way shape or form. The premise, however, is false. Even Jefferson's other writings revealed that the restrictions regarding church and state specifically applied to the federal government, and that the Constitution was written to protect religion from the government, not to protect the government from religion.
For example:
[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798. LINK
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805. LINK
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808. LINK
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808. LINK
Since the law regarding the government's involvement with religion specifically applies to the federal government, and since the establishment clause specifically states that "Congress shall make no law," then that means that if a local government wishes to do something like prohibit the erection of a mosque, unless it does not comply with the State Constitution by doing so, the municipality has every right to take such action.
The immediate response may be, "Then that would give such a governmental entity the right to do the same to a Christian church."
Not if the populace refuses to allow such a thing.
So, the key to stopping the mosques from being built in the United States is to first, flex the sovereign rights of the States, and second to convince the people that the Islamic ideology is as dangerous, and in reality is much more dangerous, than Nazism was to Germany, Fascism was to Italy, and Communism was to Russia and Eastern Europe.
Our nation's security is under attack, and the Islamic Jihad is determined to bring us down no matter what it takes. We must have the backbone to resist. If we let them take us from within, as is currently happening in Europe, we will cease to exist as a free, sovereign nation.
Conquest by Islam is slavery for all non-Muslims.
We must do what it takes to stop the invasion. Liberty requires it of us.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment