Sharia in a First Amendment Society

William Kilpatrick is an author and lecturer.  His latest book, Christianity, Islam and Atheism:  The Struggle for the Soul of the West was recently published by Ignatius Press.


Pages: 1 2

Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, has a piece in Human Events criticizing Sarah Palin for her opposition to building a mosque at Ground Zero. His argument seems to be that in guaranteeing freedom of religion, the First Amendment guarantees that all religions be treated identically. Therefore, argues Chapman, if you would allow evangelical Christians to build a church near Ground Zero, you must allow Muslims to build their mosque and community center—otherwise you are guilty of employing a double standard.

But the double standard only applies if you are dealing with two equivalent individuals or groups. You’re not guilty of using a double standard if you give the keys to your car to your sixteen-year-old child but not to your six-year-old. Likewise, if you support your own children but refuse to support your neighbor’s children, no one will accuse you of employing a double standard. In both these examples the two groupings are similar in many ways (your children, your neighbor’s children) but are different in crucial ways.

One way to avoid the double standard in regard to Islam is simply to declare that Islam is a political ideology, not a religion, and therefore not protected by the freedom of religion clause. For example, Geert Wilders has claimed that “Islam is not a religion” but a totalitarian ideology and therefore “the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.” Moorthy Muthuswamy takes a similar tack in his book Defeating Political Islam. Islam, he maintains, is basically a political ideology. Likewise, Gregory Davis, the author of Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World argues that we need to reorient our thinking about Islam: “The first task of the West must be to reclassify Islam as a political system with religious aspects, rather than a religion with political aspects.” “How do you solve a problem like Sharia?” asks Mark Steyn in a playful paraphrase of the Broadway song. The simple answer is you reclassify Islam as a political organization.

But for hundreds of years Islam has been thought of as a religion—one of the world’s “great” religions according to most history books. While it’s undoubtedly true that many Islamic leaders cynically use religion as a cover for political ambitions, it’s also certainly true that many Muslims feel that in practicing Islam they are being obedient to God’s commands. For this and a number of other reasons it would be difficult to make a case that Islam is not in any sense a religion.

If Islam is treated as a religion and is therefore protected by the free exercise clause, what then? The First Amendment has never been interpreted to give people the freedom to do whatever they want just as long as they do it in the name of religion. In the late 19th century, Congress outlawed the Mormon practice of polygamy, and when the Mormons appealed the law, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The Congress did, in fact, prohibit the free exercise of one particular Mormon custom. Congress would certainly also have the power to prohibit the free exercise of many Islamic customs, laws, and obligations that are in flagrant violation of federal laws. Crimes such as polygamy, underage marriages, stoning and whippings, honor killings and the murder of apostates are covered by existing laws. But there are other, more ambiguous areas where the free exercise of Islam might be curtailed for reasons of security. Should the wearing of the burqa be banned? Should mosques and Muslim schools be monitored for seditious activities? Should Friday sermons be pre-approved by government officials?

There are two main problems here. One problem is that there so many questionable aspects to Islamic teachings that mosques, madrassas and Islamic centers would require extensive, round-the-clock monitoring and supervision. This, in turn, would generate innumerable protests and civil rights lawsuits, and, most probably, increased media sympathy for Islam. Handled the wrong way, a tough crackdown could backfire and end up helping rather than hindering the spread of Islam.

The other problem is that such an approach sets up a slippery slope for restricting the religious freedoms of Jews, Christians, Buddhists and others. Any attempt to ban the burqa will elicit demands that nuns be forbidden to wear habits. Likewise, it will be argued that if Muslims can’t wear distinctive garb, Christians shouldn’t be allowed to wear crosses, and Jews shouldn’t be allowed to display the Star of David. And if you’re going to monitor mosques and madrassas for un-American activities, why not monitor churches, homeschools and Christian schools, as well? Granting the government sweeping supervisory powers over Islam might provide it with just the leverage it needs to haul Pastor Jones off to jail the next time he says the wrong thing about gay marriage.

It shouldn’t work that way, of course: people ought to be able to make distinctions. It ought to be obvious that Christianity poses far less of a threat to our society than does Islam. But thanks to thirty years of multicultural indoctrination, many Americans have succumbed to the notion that all groups no matter how different, must be treated the same. Thus Steve Chapman observes that even if Islam were “inherently violent and totalitarian” it would still merit the full protection of the First Amendment.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    The author seems to be confused in misses the obvious because of erosion in meaning of basic terms. And yes, the erosion of the original meaning of the Constitution (and of the common sense) achieved new highs. The concept of religion in the First Amendment concerned the only kind of religion that was practiced and recognized by the Founders and the colonist of that time. It was Christianity with strong respect to Judaism and nothing else indeed. And every country in the world has always had its own religious identity, which ought to to be preserved, rather than dissolved. Freedom of religion means that although a citizen may practice any religion, yet the state must care to assert and preserve only the religion(s) of the national identity. For America they are Christianity and Judaism only. Islam simply does not belong here.
    http://www.resonoelusono.com/Platform.htm

  • singanewsong

    Did you know that the families of those killed on 9/11 have wanted a non-denominational church built at Ground Zero to pray and honor their loved ones. But this has been denied. So where is the First Amendment for them. Political correctness is going to kill us by the hands of those who killed those innocent people on 9/11.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/deleted6776722 Gary Rumain

      So it was denied? That's interesting. But they don't seem to have a problem granting the arselifters their victory moske.

  • John

    If the US allows this mosque to be built then it is a sad day for all western values. Rather than a mosque, a statue should be erected commerating the victims AND exactly which religion was responsible. Dont let us hear about 'moderate muslims' – there is no such animal!! They (muslims) are all capable of being 'set alight' by some mad hate filled bigoted mullah or imam to go and carry out any violent act no matter how horrendous.

  • davarino

    Its tough to call a "religion" to task when its followers are not only liars but loaded with tons of cash to buy off our politicians. Is it any wonder our own politicians wont allow us to drill for oil in our own country? And how bout our beloved FOX news which is now controlled by some (item that is used to dry dishes) head.

    To treat all religions as equal is to denie the reality of history and results. Look at the christian countries and look at the muslim countries. I dont care who you are, athiest, religionist, which would you prefer. Even if you include buddism, hinduism, shintoism, any other ism, which would you prefer? Anything but islam. What an oppresive ism.

    • tim heekin

      It should be noted that Christianity cannot be "ismfied". Sects of Christianity may be but not Christianity itself. Indeed, it is the only religion that cannot be ismfied.

  • http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedom Pat

    Agreed, the last thing Islam is is a religion. It is anitithetical to religtion in Western thought.

    However, nuns rights to where habits would not be inhibited should the burqa be banned.
    Nuns faces have never been covered in any habit I have ever seen. In fact, many of the old out dated habits that are no longer worn by modern nuns, highlight the face with a huge white whimple and face framing white head gear..

    It is the hiding of ones identitity that is at issue with the burqa as it relates to national and local security.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lfox328 Lfox328

      I agree – the hijab and similar head coverings are OK – it is the burkha that I'm against.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Triple_AAA Triple_AAA

        The hijab is a shortened burqa, in the Islamic context, it's virtually the same thing, they both need to be banned!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

      THERE ARE NO CHRISTIANS – They were a mythical group said to be followers of the teachings of Love for ones Neighbor defined as all of Humanity of a Rabbi from 2000 years ago. A roman Jew named Paul turned his teachings (along with popular folk mythology of the day) into a state religion of Rome. A religion which is no longer followed anywhere today.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

        What star do you come from?

    • Miss Kathy

      I mean no disrespect; but when was the last time you read about a nun being involved in terrorist acts? Unfortunately I would have difficulty determining if there was a woman or man under a burqa and unfortunately to the point the author was making, Islam is more a political movement with religious oversight and often that oversight further promotes violence over peace, for the promise of the 72 virgins…..

  • Triple A

    I think we will eventually have to amend the first amendment to change the establishment clause to officially declare the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation. Another change would be to limit the scope of the free exercise clause to Judaism and Christianity, possibly with the addition of a few more such as Buddhism and Hinduism. The founders were not fully aware of the threat from Islam. They did not foresee the consequences that our liberal first amendment had in creating the religiously pluralistic society which Islam is exploiting. Islam is conquering the world through demographics, Muslims have extremely high birth rates many times that of non-Muslims. Imagine this scenario, I could see happening here in the US, Europe decides to restrict Islam, which it is rightfully doing. President Obama being the sympathetic Muslim that he is, decides to offer the tens of millions of Muslims in Europe asylum in the United States, arguing that they are suffering "religious persecution". Now consider for one second the consequences of this action. Just imagine what would happen if even 10% of the American population were Muslim. Considering their birthrates would likely be around 8 children per family, I don't give the US more than 100 years before it becomes part of the Islamic caliphate. Our religiously tolerant first amendment could be what brings down our great republic, if the founders had only known that!

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      "… we will eventually have to amend the first amendment to change the establishment clause to officially declare the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation. "

      Just to re-assert it, because the First Amendment have always meant exactly that and nothing but that! Christianity and Judaism are our national identity, everything else is not!
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/Platform.htm

      Even benign Buddhism and Hinduism are not (forget Islam!). There are over billion Buddhists. If immigration law does not filter them out they will finally overwhelm our proper identity!

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      "… we will eventually have to amend the first amendment to change the establishment clause to officially declare the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation. "

      Just to re-assert it is enough, because the First Amendment have always meant exactly that and nothing but that! Christianity and Judaism are our national identity, everything else is not!
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/Platform.htm

      Even benign Buddhism and Hinduism are not (forget Islam!). There are over billion Buddhists. If immigration law does not filter them out they will finally overwhelm our proper identity!

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      Triple A wrote:
      "… we will eventually have to amend the first amendment to change the establishment clause to officially declare the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation. "

      Just to re-assert it, because the First Amendment have always meant exactly that and nothing but that! Christianity and Judaism are our national identity, everything else is not!
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/Platform.htm

      Even benign Buddhism and Hinduism are not (forget Islam!). There are over billion Buddhists. If immigration law does not filter them out they will finally overwhelm our proper identity!

    • adams

      THe hour is coming when the year of 1063 and the crusades petitioned by Pope Urbin II and King Richard 1st liberated Europe from Islam.

      History always repeats itself.

      This war will be the worse of its kind…the hour is near

  • Murtard

    Passing federal legislation making the practice of Shariah law illegal will solve the majority of problems as the Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood's end game is to make the USA Shariah Compliant.

    We need to follow the legislative lead of Oklahoma, TN, and LA in outlawing Shariah.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

      FYI – The Law and basis of the United States of America is the Constitution. While I agree that Shariah Law has no place here – (or Europe but that's their problem to solve) – there is no need to display our paranoia and xenophobia to the world like the dirty laundry of American society that it is.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        What in his post is xenophobic or paranoid?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

          It is not being paranoid when they really are after you. I submit the Lower Court judges decision in New Jersey where he said raping and beating of a woman, the man's wife, was okay because Sharia authorized it where he came from! Not paranoya! (sp)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

            Starman seemed to be saying there was something paranoid or xenophobic about Murtard's post, I don't see it. Oops, looking at it again, I think you meant to post to Starman as well. I should have spotted that sooner, time for bed.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

            Still cannot navigate the arrows. I promise to get it right soon. Sleep tight.

    • trickyblain

      It's inheirent. No law needs to be passed because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Sahria conflicts with it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        Good point.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/vigilantsociety Joseph Veca

      Technically you cant outlaw Shariah law completely. But there is one heck of a big catch.

      Shariah law can be outlawed for use in secular society. This would not violate the US constitution. What is done in the mosque and how they teach cannot be touched by the government. But if individual member break secular law (regardless if it is allowed by Shariah) they will be subject to secular law.

      If they are not willing to abide by that, then our prison population is going to be increasingly Muslim.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ObamaYoMoma ObamaYoMoma

    I believe when the founders wrote the first amendment they had in mind faith-based religions. However, Islam in stark contrast to faith-based religions is a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under pain of death, and that is antithetical to everything that is American. I most certainly don’t believe that the founders ever intended to provide protection for a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death.

    With faith-based religions, adherents can freely pick and choose what it is they will believe and what it is they will reject, and they can also choose to leave the religion freely if they so desire. However, because Islam is a religion of submission as opposed to a faith-based religion, a Muslim must strictly adhere to what the Koran obligates without question, as to do otherwise is shirk, and shirk in Islam is a very serious offense that is punishable under the pain of death. Likewise, once a Muslim always a Muslim, as unlike adherents of faith-based religions, a Muslim can’t freely leave Islam, as murtaad (apostasy) is also an offense punishable by death.

    Therefore, because Islam is a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death in stark contrast to faith-based religions, I don’t believe it is accorded protection under the first amendment of the constitution. Moreover, you will never convince me that the founders intended to give the same protection of faith-based religions to a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death.

    Furthermore, besides being a religion of submission that forbids the freedom of conscience under the pain of death, Islam is also a very radical form of totalitarianism that seeks world domination. I mean if you look inside every Muslim country in the world today you will see non-Muslims and Muslim women being systematically persecuted and often violently oppressed, you will see unbelievers segregated from believers, and you will see draconian punishments like amputations, beheadings, and stonings.

    Hence, if you take Islam for what it really is in totality, a totalitarian theo-political ideology that seeks world domination, it is clear that is not protected by the first amendment. Moreover, the main goal of Islam, the subjugation of the entire world via the imposition of Sharia, couldn’t be anymore seditious. Thus, Islam and the practice thereof must be outlawed in this country, as the constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

      TALK TO YOUR PASTOR – If you are a Christian – or your Rabbi or whatever. ISLAM meaning surrender or submission to God – is very BIBLICAL.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        With all due respect, what other religion besides Islam requires its adherents to submit to the will of Allah at the same time that they must also surrender their own free wills?

        Moreover, when an individual submits to the will of Allah, in effect that person is submitting to Sharia, which is the divine will of Allah for all, not just for Muslims but also including all unbelievers, as the Muslims must actively bring about universal submission to Sharia.

        Furthermore, in Islam the freedom of conscience is forbidden under the pain of death as in effect a Muslim through submission becomes the slave of Allah. Hence, in stark contrast to faith-based religions, a Muslim can’t pick and choose what it is he or she will believe and adhere to and what it is he or she will reject or even freely leave the religion, as that is shirk (the exercise of freedom of conscience) and murtaad (apostasy), which are both very serious offenses punishable under the pain of death in Islam. In other words, a Muslim who accepts that society need not be ordered as Allah ordered it, for all intents and purposes is not a Muslim.

        Thus, since the main goal of Islam is the subjugation of all unbelievers, all other religions, and all governments, via the imposition of a totalitarian legal system (Sharia), and because the freedom of conscience in Islam is forbidden under the pain of death which means that Muslims can’t question this eternal obligation without committing shirk and murtaad, then how do you rectify a very seditious totalitarian political ideology, Islam, even being legal in this country?

        Islam mixes religion with a totalitarian political ideology that seeks world domination, however, the religion serves only as window dressing for the much greater totalitarian political ideology.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

          You remember hearing about the Inquisition and the Crusades (Known as Operation Enduring Hatred) especially the 'Children's Crusade' where children were rounded up all over Europe – Parents told by priests that their children were being called by God – the ones who weren't sold into slavery (not many) fared about like you would expect in battle.

          • GCR

            Please note the difference between what was done in God's name as opposed to what is asked for in God's Word. That is a major difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam does call for the destruction in the name of allah of all who do not capitulate to Islam. It is the obligation of the jihadist to do the dirty work for their allah.

          • Babs

            Parents were NOT told by priests that their children were being called by God…Stephen, a French boy, claimed that Jesus had appeared to him and that Jerusalem would be taken by the children. Thousands of youngters (average age was 12) marched from France and Germany but MOST of them were captured and sold to Muslims. They never fought any battles….and I never heard of the Crusades being called Operation Enduring Hatred…misguided most definitely as the cause of Christ was never meant to be promoted by the sword….so what's your point?

          • oneStarman

            Babs,

            This was one point an an ongoing response to a comment by ObamaMama (with the RatFinK graphic) – who was continuing the old argument that 'the scaryMuslimsare evil' that they are robots – orpossessedby demons or something. I have been fighting this kind of stupid xenophobia for about 50 years. My countering argument centered around my observation that ISLAM meaning submission or surrender to God was in fact the basis of Christian Devotion as taught by the mystics and theologians of since the beginning. His response to me re-iterated his pre-judging of Islam (btw I'm a Christian not that it matters) as unique in its 'mind control' of itsadherents – leading to Jihad alaArmageddon. To counter this – I used an allegory of the Children's Crusade – where Christians were deceived through the twisting of their religion (I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Vision Boy who fleeced the faithful) into doing something stupid. I Just trying to get ObamaMama (impossible) or his readers (like you) to consider the OTHER as a human being just like themselves – by putting themselves (or theirancestors) into that OTHERS' shoes.

            From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
            To: onehigginsd@hotmail.com
            Subject: Babs replied to your comment on Sharia in a First Amendment Society

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

        Not Mine Own Will But Thine Lord

      • GCR

        The submission to Islam is an unquestioning and total denial of reasoning condition. That contrasts with Christianity, which implores people to examine the facts, 'try the spirits' (thought of examining and testing), 'search the scriptures' etc before accepting.

  • richard

    "Should the wearing of the burqa be banned? Should mosques and Muslim schools be monitored for seditious activities? Should Friday sermons be pre-approved by government officials"?

    Any attempt to ban the burqa will elicit demands that nuns be forbidden to wear habits. Likewise, it will be argued that if Muslims can’t wear distinctive garb, Christians shouldn’t be allowed to wear crosses, and Jews shouldn’t be allowed to display the Star of David.
    —————————-
    respectfully i disagree. obviously a distinction can be draws as the burka covers the entire face, head, making even the sex indistinguishable.
    also with the xray devices soon to be at airports. i cannot see muslim women having their bodies visible in this manner. i believe anyone who does not agree to universal security measures has that right. but then they forfeit the right to fly.

  • Stephen D.

    Murtard is exactly right! This is the only way to go about it. We cannot legally have an argument against a persons beliefs – impossible task. But we can make a law to prohibit any and all influence of foreign laws, including Sharia into our Constitutional based jurisprudence. I expect our courts to start catering to the influence of other nations and little by little the cancer of Sharia takes hold and spreads. The Constitution and Sharia are diametrically opposed.
    Another point from this post of Kilpatrick is that I controvert his claim that
    "Christianity poses far less of a threat to our society than does Islam."
    I suggest there is NO THREAT from Christianity to our society. Quite the opposite. Christianity and Judaism is what distinguishes our society from those that invoke Sharia.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

    ANTI-CHRISTIAN AMERICA – I have no problem with a Mosque, Synagogue or Christian church anywhere. I have no problem with Nativity scenes and Crosses in public squares. I think that teaching morality and ethics to our children is a crucial part of education in any society. Religious teachings – because they are one of the primary sources of ethical and moral thought that any society produces – SHOULD BE TAUGHT in every school. I am disturbed by the fact that CHRISTIANITY is the only religion oppressed in this country.

  • hellooutthere

    "Thus Steve Chapman observes that even if Islam were “inherently violent and totalitarian” it would still merit the full protection of the First Amendment."

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – Karl Popper

    • gcr

      It is possible to be so open minded that we lose all common sense

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/vigilantsociety Joseph Veca

      I don't agree. What is seen as a weakness by many, is also the very strength that will make it possible to defeat it.

      The first step is, quit tip toeing around the blood Muslims, start ticking them off at every opportunity, make picture of Mohamed and post them on the internet, expose their religion for what it is.

      I have already managed to torque off one local Iman when I referred to Mohamed as slave trading, mass murdering, lecherous pedophile. When told that I was lying I asked does that mean that the Qur'an is a lie because I can back up my statement from the Qur'an. He went up in flames and started making all kinds of threats against me.

      I just told him, whoever you send had better get it right the first time, because I was going to start putting bacon fat in my hollow points.

  • Liberty Clinger

    “The first task of the West must be to reclassify Islam as a political system with religious aspects, rather than a religion with political aspects.”

    “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State….Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.” Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi
    http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32150

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

      WE NEED TO RE-CLASSIFY CHRISTIANITY as a tax shelter with 'pseudo spiritual' aspects.

  • Liberty Clinger

    If Islam is treated as a religion and is therefore protected by the free exercise clause, what then?

    “In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government (and the individual’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) under which they live.” Samuel Adams
    http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

  • Richard

    Let's amend the First Amendment with another amendment that excludes Islam from it' s protections. Because it is newer this amendment would over dule that part of the First Amendment.

    • trickyblain

      There's an idea. After that, we can ban everything else in the world that you feel uncomffortable with. Do you even have a slight clue as to the reasoning behing the First Amendment?

  • Richard II

    Sorry for the typos above. I was running out of time on my computer. I mean it's and over rule.

  • 40Below

    "Islam" is a cult. The cult of Mohammed. M was nothing more or less than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Manson, Aum Shinri-kyo and the others. M was a supreme narcissist afflicted with temporal lobe epilepsy, acromegaly, and a host of obsessive/compulsive disorders. Like cults everywhere, leaving the cult or questioning it are lethal offensives. Cults can brook no half-heartedness. You're totally with us or you're the enemy. Enemies must be killed. Read "Mohammed: A Psychobiography" by Ali Sina. All your questions will be answered.

    • BetterThan40

      cult (noun) – a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. Ergo, ALL religions are cults.

  • jameszz

    These supporters of terror are waiting for the day when they can openly declare a fatwa on every one who opposes them in the U.S.
    Pamela is already a target.

    There is Jihad America and is not a funny parody. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6hJ5v6LdI4

  • Pendleton

    There is an aspect of Islam which is seldom discussed and yet which confirms its inherently seditious, violent, imperialistic basis and that is in the practice of ZAKAT ('alms' or 'charity). ZAKAT is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, regarded as the most important and Koran 9:60 explains who are to be the beneficiaries of ZAKAT and to what purposes ZAKAT is to be put. (ZAKAT is an obligatory contribution/tax on all Moslems and may be paid by them, for example, to their mosques, or so-called Islamic 'charities'). Koran 9:60 states that those recipients of ZAKAT are: the poor, the tax collectors, to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined toward Islam (da'wa), to free captives, those in debt, for the wayfarer AND "FOR ALLAH'S CAUSE" (i.e. for the Mujahidun, those fighting in 'holy battle,' JIHAD. This expression "For Allah's Cause" appears in hundreds of verses in the Koran and Hadiths and always refers to warfare against all non-Moslems, to bring them to Islam ('submission') and to its Sharia. Thus, Islam is essentially seditious, because it lays the groundwork within the 'theological framework' of one of its Five Pillars for the undermining and violent overthrow of governments and societies and for the enslavement of their peoples under Sharia. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, 'The Reliance of the Traveller' ('Umdat al-Salik) devotes an entire chapter to the use of ZAKAT for the specific use of Jihadists "For Allah's Cause".

  • trickyblain

    "But thanks to thirty years of multicultural indoctrination, many Americans have succumbed to the notion that all groups no matter how different, must be treated the same."

    Um, that would be 234 years. Equal protection under the law and all. If individual members of the "group"break the law of the US, they lose many of those protections. But not before.

    Doesn't liberty and freedom suck when it applies to others?

    • davarino

      ya especially when they want to kill you. Your a moron and dont even know it. You have been disarmed by the multiculturalism that has infected your brain.

    • Andy

      It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution.

      Syed Abul A'ala Maududi
      Sunni Pakistani journalist, theologian, Muslim revivalist leader and political philosopher, and a major 20th century Islamist thinker

      Keep protecting them trickyblain…….
      Fascisme, Communism an islam are all totalitarian ideologies.
      And trickyblain …islam WILL destroy YOUr PCMC ideology.
      Try to find one free, diverse MC muslim country that protects its minorities.
      Just one……….

      • trickyblain

        Syed's dead, Andy.

        Is this something your really see the American public rolling over for? I just don't't see any series of dots that, if connected, would mean Sharia in the US.

    • Andy

      Listen to this trickyblain… http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=patcondell#p/

      • trickyblain

        Can't say I disagree with anything until the last 90 seconds.

        It's not that I don't think there is intent. It's the ability (political, military, cultural) of Islamists within the US to accomplish a Muslim fundamentalist overthrow of the Constitution. If they were to even try and supplant the Constitution, it would be treason — a felony. But until they commit these or other crimes, they have the same protections as all other "worshippers." Subverting ideals devalues them, it doesn't protect them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/loseyateefa loseyateefa

    Islam is from the pit of hell. Allah is satan. Muhammed is just the spokesperson.
    Here is a free 295 page pdf downloadable book by Sujit Das:
    Unmasking Muhammed: The Malignant Narcissist and his Grand Delusion Allah https://acrobat.com/#d=WsvZBY1sY0pLKbrDQmGZyA
    Every muslim should be forced to read it to give them the sense to leave Islam, and every non-muslim needs to read it to defend against those who don't.
    The author uses extensive understanding of psychiatry, history, the Qu'ran and the life of Muhammed. It is the most exhaustive source I've seen. He doesn't hold the copyright and wants this disseminated as widely as possible. Please repost this source as often as applicable.

  • badaboo

    There are Alien and Sedition Laws on the books . Islams has already crossed that line but in many facetious ways . Therefore materials , sermons , lectures etc . that take place in mosques [ OR CHURCHES ] which call for the violent ovewrthrow of the United States , ARE IN FACT a violation of those laws .
    Time to plant a few 'muslims " in those mosques [OR CHURCHES] ar med with video recorders .
    No ?

  • badaboo

    Those LAWS were made precisely for the situation we face today . U.S.LAW MUST TRUMP all others , religious or secular . There is this ridiculous notion being put forward, that Sharia law is suitable amongst muslim communities willing to abide it , Trouble with that is , it is usually and inevitably forced on non-compliants , Liberty is lost , and a theocracy is created . A direct contradiction and violation of the Constitution .
    Just look where it's getting the Brits ….it's the old camel and the tent parable [no pun intended ]
    Unfortunately there are also some Christians , who need to get that into their heads .

  • badaboo

    To loseyateefa , even though there are many muslims who have commited the entire Q'uran to memory , many do not even understand the Arabic they have memorized . Inj addition , muslims may read the Q'uran , but are forbidden to interpret it for themselves .
    The very muslim sages , and companions of vthe prophet , have written down enough to convince any rational mind that Mohammed was deranged and anything but a holy man or prophet ……but it falls on deaf ears . You cannot reason with muslims .

  • badaboo

    The few muslims who do leave the faith , are killed .Those who speak out need to watch their backs for the rest of their lives . This is worse than it seems , and it's gonna get worse before it gets worse .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

    JOHN KENNEDY – I remember the 'hubbub' when he was running for president because many in the country were not sure that a 'papist' (Catholic) might not be under the 'secret control' of Rome. As we left our farms for the cities many of us left behind the Xenophobia of the frontier – some of us did not – like the author. This 'fear of the other' usually dissipates as one gains experience with the 'outside world' and learns that black and brown and funny talking people are not that different from Aunt Marge and Uncle Joe.

    • traeh

      Another example:
      On page 369 of THE EARLIEST BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, WRITTEN BY A DEVOUT MUSLIM, MUHAMMAD SAYS "KILL ANY JEW WHO FALLS INTO YOUR POWER":

      It's a "beautiful" story of two brothers, Muhayyissa and Huwayyisa:
      "The apostle [Muhammad] said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa bin Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed [the Jewish merchant], Huwayyisa began to beat [his brother Muhayyisa], saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'…[Huwayyisa] replied, 'By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?' [Muhayissa] said, 'Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.' [Huwayyisa] exclaimed, "By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!' and [Huwayyisa] became a Muslim." (p. 369).
      (See: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/01

      MUHAMMAD SAID: DEATH TO THOSE WHO LEAVE ISLAM

      In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

      See: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagemen

      Various other canonical hadiths attest that Muhammad called for death to those who leave Islam. That's why even today all the schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostasy from Islam.

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      FROM PAGE 515 OF THE EARLIEST BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, WRITTEN BY A DEVOUT MUSLIM, here is HOW MUHAMMAD ORDERED THE TORTURE AND BEHEADING OF A MAN IN ORDER TO GET THE MAN'S TREASURE:

      See: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/01

      "Kinana b. al-Rabi', who had the custody of the treasure of the B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought") to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle [Muhammad] said to Kinana, 'Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?' he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle [Muhammad] gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head in revenge for his brother Mahmud.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/traeh traeh

      Another example:
      MUHAMMAD SAID THERE IS TO BE NO PUNISHMENT FOR MURDERING SOMEONE WHO INSULTS MUHAMMAD:

      Here, from Sunan Abu-Dawud, a hadith collection considered canonical by mainstream Muslim scholars, is a hadith that shows Muhammad supporting the murder of a woman by her husband, merely because she used to speak to her husband insultingly about Muhammad:

      Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348:
      See: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagemen

      "Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
      A blind man had a slave-mother [a slave who bore children for him] who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He [the blindman] forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he [the blindman] took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
      He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
      He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
      Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

      There are other examples in the core Islamic texts of Muhammad having those who insult Islam killed.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/traeh traeh

    Our First Amendment makes it difficult to stop Islam as a religion, but we CAN fight Sharia (Islamic law) without running afoul of the First Amendment. And Sharia is so central to Islam that if we sufficiently attack any and all support for Sharia, we will go a long way toward defeating Islam, while remaining within our Bill of Rights and Constitution. After World War II, when we had defeated imperial Japan, we did not outlaw Shinto in Japan. We outlawed any political manifestation of Shinto.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Triple_AAA Triple_AAA

      Well nothing says we can't change the first amendment!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Reason_For_Life Reason_For_Life

        Yes there is, sanity and the desire to remain a free country says we can't.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Reason_For_Life Reason_For_Life

      We demanded that the Japanese institute a separation of church and state. The result was a civilized country where Christians are free to worship.

      By comparison Bush said that if Afghan elections resulted in theocracy, he would accept the result. Now, we are living with that result. Christians are vilified, apostates are sentenced to death.

      We should have demanded a separation of mosque and state. They lost the war which means that they don't get to choose a form of tyranny any more than Germany or Japan did.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/traeh traeh

    onestarman said,
    "JOHN KENNEDY – I remember the 'hubbub' when he was running for president because many in the country were not sure that a 'papist' (Catholic) might not be under the 'secret control' of Rome. As we left our farms for the cities many of us left behind the Xenophobia of the frontier – some of us did not – like the author. This 'fear of the other' usually dissipates as one gains experience with the 'outside world' and learns that black and brown and funny talking people are not that different from Aunt Marge and Uncle Joe."

    Several reasons why you are mistaken:
    MUHAMMAD SAID THERE IS TO BE NO PUNISHMENT FOR MURDERING SOMEONE WHO INSULTS MUHAMMAD:

    Here, from Sunan Abu-Dawud, a hadith collection considered canonical by mainstream Muslim scholars (when they are not intentionally disinforming Westerners), is a hadith that shows Muhammad supporting the murder of a woman by her husband, merely because she used to speak to her husband insultingly about Muhammad:

    Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348:
    See: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagemen

    "Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
    A blind man had a slave-mother [a slave who bore children for him] who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He [the blindman] forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he [the blindman] took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
    He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
    He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
    Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

    There are other examples in the core Islamic texts of Muhammad having those who insult Islam killed.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    MUHAMMAD SAID: DEATH TO THOSE WHO LEAVE ISLAM

    In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

    See: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagemen

    Various other canonical hadiths attest that Muhammad called for death to those who leave Islam. That's why even today all the schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostasy from Islam.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/traeh traeh

    My comments seem to be getting deleted by some sort of automatic administrator, perhaps because I have been making too many comments too quickly?

  • Thalpy

    For some time we've known that Islam does not meet the criteria for 501 (c) (3) tax status. Moreover, mosques are not churches, they're fortresses. After 9/11 no more mosques should have been built in our country–period.

    Let's move on this–NOW!

  • desperado

    Islam! What a joke. Islam is not a religion and it is not peaceful. Islam dictates that rape murder pedophilia and abuse are ok. I do not see Chritians cutting off heads or raping children and women and murdering innocent people. yes there are some so called christian extremist but these aholes are in every religion

  • Jeter

    Islam should be shown the same tolerance in the civilized world that Christianity and Judaism are shown in Saudi Arabia. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • http://frontpagemag.com Truth Detector

    Islamism isn't a religion. Islamism is a Crime Syndicate. Each Islamic sect is a Crime Syndicate that commits all kinds of crimes against humanity: Honor Killings; stoning women to death; hanging homosexuals sometimes on mere suspicion; torturing and mutilating little girls as in Female Genital Mutilation; forcing little girls to "marry" Muslim male sex perverts; literally raping little girls in a so-called legal marriage; and many more crimes.

  • Irv Pollack

    Just a note to Mr. Kilpatrick and all commenters. The writer, Lawrence Auster, who Kilpatrick cites at the end of his article, used to be a contributor to Front Page Magazine. He was declared personna non gratta by David Horowitz for reasons unknown about 4 years ago. I have written to Mr. Horowitz on many occasions asking him to start publishing Mr. Auster's insights again. He produces brilliantly clear, reasoned analyses on a host of subjects. We need to hear from people who get to the very essence of difficult problems that confront us. David, we can not fear the unvarnished truth! I call upon you again to appologize to Lawrence Auster and publish his essays. The truth will set us and keep us free!

  • Joe Stevens

    “The influence of Islam paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” – Winston Churchill

    We should not feel guilty, or racist, if we voice concern about ideologies that openly and vociferously seek to destroy our civilization and constitutional freedoms. It is the duty of free people to speak out against ideologies that threaten our basic freedoms. Our forefathers would be ashamed that those who speak out today are so summarily vilified in the name of political correctness. Let us not forget that Benjamin Franklin said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

    We need to answer the real burning question: Does Islam (not just fringe elements) sanction the violence perpetrated in the name of Allah around the world? The honest answer is yes. The Koran, Hadiths, Sharia and centuries of Islamic history all show that Islam has a developed doctrine of theology and law that mandates violence against unbelievers. Except for Mulsims fighting non-Muslims the world is mostly at peace. Nearly every violent conflict in the world today (Somalia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Sudan, Kashmir, Indonesia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Thailand, etc.) is as a result of Muslims fighting to force Islam and Sharia law on others; beheading, amputating and torturing Christians and unbelievers in their march toward a global hegemony of Sharia law.

    We shouldn’t be shocked by the barbaric beheadings of Jews and Christians by modern day Muslims; Muhammad, who is considered the perfect representation of human behavior in Islam, personally beheaded between 600-900 members of the Coriza tribe in Arabia. If the perfect prophet did it then it is the proper way for Muslims to behave for all time.

    The peaceful revelations of the Koran – those most often quoted by Westerners – are limited to the time when the prophet was relatively powerless in his native city of Mecca. These revelations were abrogated and made null in later verses once Muhammad had become a powerful and wealthy warlord in Medina. In the last revealed (valid verses) the message is clear: Sura 9:5 “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them… and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.” Sura 5:33 “Those that wage war against Allah and his messenger… shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides.” Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 8, Book 82, Hadith 795 “The prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina.” Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 4, Book 53, Hadith 392 “You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and his apostle, and I want to expel you from this land.” Sura 8:67 “It is not for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war and free them with ransom until he had made a great slaughter among his enemies in the land.” Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 4, Book 53, Hadith 386 “Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you until you worship Allah alone…” Sura 8:12 " I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them." Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 88 “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old.”

    Islam is a totalitarian ideology driven by hate, violence and intolerance. Its goal is the hegemony of Sharia law across the earth. Ideologies that seek world domination are generally not compatible with Western concepts of civilization and freedom (see Nazism). Islam openly seeks the destruction of all other religions and the dismantling of Western civilization and its flawed man-made laws and traditions. How ironic that, in the name of freedom of religion, we are standing up in support of an ideology that, if it had the chance, would immediately abolish those very ideals!

  • Toa

    This new "cultural center" is to be named Cordoba House. The city of Cordoba was the seat of a Muslim Caliphate during the Islamic rule of Spain. The Muslims have seen very well the appeasing cowardice of the NYC "Liberals" , who are offering to hold their cloaks while they throw this major gauntlet down to the face of "infidel" America.
    Their choice of this name for their proposed command…uuh, that is, CULTURAL center is no mere random choice.

  • badaboo

    sorry nabi18 , but the Q'uran is no "miracle " …not by any stretch . It contains animus and denigration of non-muslims , preaches violence towards those who won't revert . And makes no secret of the ultimate "Goal the Prophet " which is world subjugation to islam.
    I suggest you do a little earnest investigation on WHO wrote the Q'uran , and HOW it was written . It is a perfect example of religious supremacism and an utter disregard for non-muslims .

  • badaboo

    nabi18 although my original commnent was deleted , basically it stated that it is no "miracle " , not by any stretch of the imagination .

  • badaboo

    I suggest you do some earnest /honest investigation , and learn who wrote it and how it was written .

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/nabi18 nabi18

      Badaboo, I have read the entire Qur'an itself in Arabic plus the translation in English and I am convinced that this could only be the word of God. I cannot reproduce anything like it. But maybe you think you can. God bless you.
      The fact that it remains exactly as it was 1400 years ago and millions of people around the world can recite it from memory is in itself a miracle. But that it is just my opinion. People have different ways of defining miracles.
      I respect your view.

  • badaboo

    sorry you feel that way , I'm not convinced , and i've read it at least 4 times . I consider anyone that can commit it to memory an oddity rather than a miracle . I must confess , I'm of the habit of determining a tree by it's fruit , and when I look around the world , that "fruit " is less than flattering .I do not doubt , in fact I know it hasn't changed in 1400 years , and interpretations may vary but all have as their source the same book ,which in my opinion has the mark of men all throughout . God blesses everyone ,as the next breath we take is a blessing .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Reason_For_Life Reason_For_Life

    It is not the free exercise clause that is the important part of the 1st Amendment in this case. It is the freedom of speech clause. The 1st Amendment was not intended solely to protect religious worship but the right to speak your mind on any subject as well. Above all, it was intended to protect both political speech and offensive speech. Who has ever been jailed for saying things that were too inoffensive?

    A mosque at ground zero is unquestionably offensive. It is intended to offend and provoke retaliation so that it's Wahhabi sponsors can claim to be victims and gain a protected legal status.

    That's why it must not be stopped. Once offensive speech is shut down in America then it is only a matter of time until the principle is extended to everyone. Critics of Islamic lunacy will be hauled before commissions run by the government in conjunction with Wahhabi scholars and charged with insulting Islam, just as Steyn was charged in Canada.

    You cannot compete with Islam in a bigotry contest, they have far more experience and are much better at it than the rest of us. At worst their insult should be ignored. At best the mosque should be treated as an object of ridicule, an ineffective, pathetic attempt to provoke Americans into surrendering their liberty.

    Sacrificing our 1st Amendment is too great a price to pay to retaliate for an insult.

  • kage

    Anything relating to Islam cannot be understood without reading the Koran. The Koran is the Muslim's holy book given directly to Mohammad from Allah. There are also books on Islam written by Robert Spencer which are extremely accurate and truthful. There is a main focus and directive in the Koran which is very troubling. All Muslims are directed to convert the unbelievers, or subjugate them or when the first two actions are unsuccessful Muslims are directed to kill the unbelievers. I call this the "Great Modifier" of the Koran. Why ? Because these directives are never rescinded or modified. So, no matter what you are told regarding Islam always remember the "Great Modifier". Remembering will save your freedom and your life and those of your family.

  • Ron

    Islam, a False religion, was created by one man.. Mohammad, about 700 years after Christ walked the Earth….. A Jewish Rabbi, who had to flee Jerusalem to keep from being stoned to death, for teaching false teachings…… It took him some 27 years to get from Jerusalem to Mecca, in that time, he wrote the Quo'ran… He chose to use the Babylonian god Allah, the moon god.. as his deity.. because he was aiming his newly created religion at the Arabs who worshiped several gods… and had them to dispense with their other gods… So ask yourself.. is there any wonder he put in the Qua'ran man times that all Jews had to die… that was why he created this religion, to destroy all Jews.. and over time it has been used to destroy anyone they didn't like…

    Don't believe the hype they want you to believe, they are a religion of peace.. BS… They ahve always been a false religion of HATE!!!!

  • Politicalpony

    Islam is a Political ideology, and therefore doesn't fall under the first amendment. In fact Islams Sharia Law has no place whatsoever in US Borders under the US Constitutions Supremacy Clause. Enough sad of the subject. It's time we all recognize this truth and send it packing from or shores.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/deleted6776722 Gary Rumain

    Incorrect. Christianity was accepted so your specious argument is proven false. Mahound was a narcissist. He created pislam so everyone would worship him. Hence his intimidation of other religions and the consequent decline of Christianity in the region.

  • Adams.

    The hour is coming where there is a major correction and liberation of islam from the civilized world.

    Unfortunately, the wrath to deal with with islamalzation of the globe will be dealt with powers of whom civil rights will be dismissed, in order to establish order, and never again to repeat…1063 Pope Urbin II and King Richard 1st had the same mission. History repeating itself.

  • adams

    The hour is coming where there is a major correction and liberation of islam from the civilized world.

    Unfortunately, the wrath to deal with with islamalzation of the globe will be dealt with powers of whom civil rights will be dismissed, in order to establish order, and never again to repeat…1063 Pope Urbin II and King Richard 1st had the same mission. History repeating itself.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

    One probably wouldn't have to stray too far from the law, a couple of dew trucks dumping a couple thousand gallons of pigs blood on the lot should do it. Nobody gets hurt and the land is unfit for a mosque.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/oneStarman oneStarman

    OUTSIDE THE LAW – I See – Somewhat like when we abandoned the U.S. Constitution to live under the tyranny of a 'decider' codified by the 'Patriot' (Missile) Act – if we don't need to worry about the boundaries of some silly system of law – we can simplify the electoral process a great deal by just 'black bagging' any potential political rivals until after elections. Who needs 'investigations' if we can use any means to carve the information out of 'suspects'

  • BS77

    One potential preventative could be the issue of public security and safety…If Hon Mayor Bloomberg had a pair, he could create a commission to "study" the issue and this could take several years…after that various appeals and other concerns could stall this Trojan Horse from being allowed near ground zero.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadConserv CanadConserv

    I read this possibility: If the mosque were funded by Americans, there'd be no way to stop it. But if it's funded by foreigners, as is likely, then there are options, especially if some are tired to terroist entities – as is the case.

  • adams

    Liberation is on a wholesale scale making the Jewish of WWII small about to come upon Islam.

    Today, islam is white, spanish, back rich and poor American and Mexican, or African American…The war, that will ensue literally go from house to houses. The forces are being created to change the global presence. Being obama is muslim, the USA technically belongs to England, for the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution should the christian values be removed and replaced with non christian values…