LESSONS IN LOGIC: Islam, Freedom of Religion, and the American Ideal

While it is true, the American ideal is largely predicated upon freedom of religion (conscience), it is essential that we understand that there are limits to our religious liberties.  One cannot claim religious liberty as a protection against an act that is political or criminal in nature.  For example, one cannot claim religious protection as a shield against subversion of the established government.  Nor can one claim religious liberty as protection against prosecution for theft, rape or murder.  Neither American civil nor Natural Law recognize any of these things (subversion, theft, rape or murder) as an inherent characteristic of any legitimate religion.  They are — by civil and Natural Law — criminal actions because they are acts that cause harm to individuals, their property or the Social Contract under which they live and seek to protect their rights.  However, due to the growth of general ignorance in American society — even among those in our governing elite — Islam is being afforded protections for which it does not qualify, nor does it deserve.

So, to those readers who do not see what I am trying to explain, or who see it but disagree with me, let me try something else.  Maybe I can get you to see the problem more clearly.  Rush Limbaugh has an effective means of making his point in cases such as this.  He illustrates absurdity by using absurdity.  The technique is even more effective when we use a related but different subject to make the point.  So let me try to frame the real issue at hand this way:

What if Satanists started to murder people in the performance of their religious rituals?  Would you still think we should afford the protection of the First Amendment to them?  Is murder a protected religious ‘right?’  If you say no, then you have to say no to Islam, as well.  Muhammad commanded the murder of anyone who refuses the offer to convert to Islam.  This is not an ‘option’ in Islam.  Muhammad commanded Muslims to wage war with all humanity until there is only Islam (see my ‘FOR TRUTH SEEKERS ONLY’ series here on the OYL).

What if someone claimed their religion gave them permission to steal?  Would you extend First Amendment protections to them under the guise of religious liberty?  If you say no, then you also have to say no to Islam.  Muhammad said there is no sin if a Muslim steal from a non-Muslim.

What if I claimed I did not have to obey Federal or State laws, but that you had to obey the laws of my religion, instead?  Would you allow me to operate under my own legal system, and even submit to my legal system — all under the name of ‘religious liberty?’  If you say no, then you have to say no to Islam.  Muhammad commanded Muslims to live under Shari’a whenever and wherever possible, and to seek to enforce Shari’a as soon as Islam was strong enough to do so in a given locality (this is already happening in parts of Michigan and the Mid-West).

What if someone claims their religion allows them to rape any woman they find in public without a male member of her family with her, or if she is dressed in a way that ‘excites’ them?  Would you allow them to do this under the protection of the First Amendment?  If you say no, you have to say no to Islam.  Muhammad gave Muslims permission to do this.

What if I claim I can break a contract with anyone who is not part of my religion, and that I do not have to repay any money I borrow, nor do I have to return any property involved?  Would you allow this because of my religion?  If you say no, you have to say no to Islam.  Muhammad specifically told Muslims they cannot keep any agreement with non-Muslims for more than ten years, and that they can break any agreement they make with non-Muslims at any time.

If I tell you I can lie, even on contracts or while under oath, will you protect that under the First Amendment?  If you say no, you have to say no to Islam.

What if I tell you my religion forbids your religion, and that you must convert to my religion? Would you allow this under the First Amendment?  If you say no, you must say no to Islam.

I can go on, but I shouldn’t have to — not by this time.  By this time, any reasonable person should see the problem we are facing.  But what about those Muslims who do not do these things?  Simple: according to Muhammad, they are either lying until they are strong enough to obey Muhammad’s commands…or they are not Muslims!  In that case:

What if I tell you my religions commands me to kill anyone who tries to leave or change my religion?  Are you going to tell people this is protected by the First Amendment?  If you say no, you must say no to Islam.

Do you see why Islam is not compatible with the American ideal yet?  Or are you going to be one of those who sees the threat and still refuses to recognize it simply because you do not want to face the logical consequences of acknowledging it?  You have  choice to make, and a duty to behave accordingly — but choose wisely.  One choice defends this nation; the other dooms it to destruction!