Bryan Fischer, host of a radio talk show broadcast by the American Family Association:
The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary….Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.
Actually, both the First Amendment and the No Religious Test Clause of the original Constitution were quite deliberately written to cover all religions. Many state constitutions of the era did limit their protection to Protestants (New Jersey, North Carolina, and Vermont) or Christians (Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts). Some others (New Hampshire and href=”http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions36.html”>South Carolina) provided for funding of Protestant or Christian teaching, or more broadly established Protestantism, but did not limit religious freedom protections or office-holding.
But the U.S. Constitution did not have any such limitation. James Iredell, later one of the first Justices of the Supreme Court, specifically defended the No Religious Test Clause on precisely these grounds:
I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America….But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened.
Likewise, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Virginia statute protecting religious freedom, which he drafted, deliberately covered “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination,” and that a proposal to mention Christ in the bill “was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend” all religions. Barnes v. Inhabitants of First Parish in Falmouth, 6 Mass. 401 (1810), expressly stated that the Massachusetts Constitution’s general protection for religious freedom — similar in this respect to the First Amendment’s general protection — “secured liberty of conscience, on the subject of religious opinion and worship, for every man, whether Protestant or Catholic, Jew, Mahometan, or Pagan.” (Massachusetts limited various offices to Christians, but otherwise provided for religious freedom without such a limitation.)
I know of no sources that suggested that anyone during the Framing era understood the Constitution as excluding “Mahometans,” or non-Christians more generally, from either the Free Exercise Clause or the No Religious Test Clause. (The Framers were open to general religious references, and sometimes references to Christianity, in the speech of the federal government; they likely had a much narrower view of the Establishment Clause than that reflected in the Supreme Court’s modern caselaw. But that is a separate matter from which religions were protected by the Free Exercise Clause and the No Religious Test Clause.)
David Schwartz says:
This is the view of many of America’s enemies.
March 25, 2011, 7:32 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Well, that didn’t take long.
March 25, 2011, 7:37 pmEarle Williams says:
It’s also the view of many of America’s friends.
March 25, 2011, 7:39 pmTed says:
With friends like those, who needs enemies?
March 25, 2011, 7:43 pmByomtov says:
What is the view of many of America’s enemies? And why does that matter?
I suppose some of America’s enemies think exercise is healthy.
Fischer’s idiotic opinions of the First Amendment, among many other things, would hardly matter, if Republican presidential hopefuls weren’t so eager to curry favor with him.
March 25, 2011, 7:44 pmTMK75 says:
Idiots like this just make it easier for liberals to brand all Republicans as ignorant extremists. I wish he had consulted even a first year law student before opening his mouth.
The sad reality is that his statements are closer to the truth in most Islamic nations. In many if not most majority Muslim countries religious equality (or even tolerance) is largely non-existent, as evidenced by the 1 way street regarding conversion/apostasy.
March 25, 2011, 7:56 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Well, when you’ve got Truth, freedom can only lead to error. Everybody knows that.
March 25, 2011, 8:04 pmnewrouter says:
“I know of no sources that suggested that anyone during the Framing era understood the Constitution as excluding”
go after some of the control freak left sometimes. you might appear “fair and balanced”
“U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) stood with, and was applauded by, Planned Parenthood supporters and state lawmakers and said, “They [Tea Party Republicans and the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars funding Planned Parenthood] don’t deserve the freedoms in the Constitution, but we’ll give it to them anyway.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/democrat_senator_tells_how_he.html
March 25, 2011, 8:05 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
If they do, they reveal themselves to be idiots too.
People think all kinds of things that aren’t so. They express them, too. You can’t control that.
March 25, 2011, 8:05 pmnewrouter says:
“I know of no sources that suggested that anyone during the Framing era understood the Constitution as excluding “Mahometans,” ”
yea well there wasn’t a ruling class importing them into the country at the time.
March 25, 2011, 8:09 pmJon Rowe says:
Joseph Story, whom Fischer misunderstands as he quotes as authority for his proposition, was more tolerant on religious matters than Fischer. As Story’s brother noted:
As I noted in this post, though he thought his religious system “Christianity,” (and for all I know, it IS “real Christianity”) Story’s creed was actually biblical unitarian-universalism.
March 25, 2011, 8:12 pmManju says:
I wonder if Fischer really believes the history he’s pushing. These christian-revisionist narratives aren’t obscure but this is a new one.
More likely he’s between a rock and hard place. He can’t go the living documant route without putting potential supporters in position of hypocrisy, so he’s forced into an original intent framing.
There was some guy in Germany who tried to get the Koran Banned as hate speech. The last time the american right tried that was when they hooked up with the feminists, in an attempt to get us to view porn as an act of discrimination.
They suceeded, if you erase the last 5 words.
March 25, 2011, 8:17 pmAnon21 says:
Difference being, Fischer is making an erroneous claim about a matter of fact (the Framers’ intentions), whereas Lautenberg just expressed an opinion. It’s difficult to see what EV could add to whatever discussion there is on Lautenberg’s remarks, whereas the value added here is obvious.
Side note: that’s not how you use brackets. Or maybe it is. “newrouter said ‘go after some of the control freak left sometimes. maybe you’ll appear [more congenial to my stupid, blinkered, partisan point of view].’”
Nor is there now.
March 25, 2011, 8:22 pmIronclad says:
The man is an idiot and his claims are outlandish. That said, the fundamental purpose of the 1st Amendment was to insure freedom of belief. That would certainly include all religions, including the proverbial worshipers of the “flying spaghetti monster”.
Where the difficulty occurs is freedom of practice. While no one seriously advocates the punishments in the Old Testament be carried out literally, or that Aztec worshipers be give the right to perform human sacrifice, there are real difficulties in reconciling Sharia requirements with Freedom of Religion. Are Muslims allowed to discriminate against non-Muslims as prescribed? (Dhimmi status) May women’s testimony be reduced in value against a man? Can women’s inheritance be reduced to half a share of her brothers? The list goes on and on.
Believe what you want – practice in accordance with the (man made) laws.
March 25, 2011, 8:36 pmef says:
I think this argument generally forgets that the Bill of Rights originally only applied to what the Federal government could do. The 1st amendment only kept the federal government out of religious matters. It did nothing else to establish a general religious liberty for the people as a whole. That, as mentioned in the article, the early State Constitutions reflected no such general liberty, though being written or at least heavily influenced by the same drafters, ought to show that argument as distinctly false.
I’ll add that I find it unlikely that the founders gave much thought to the specific inclusion or exclusion of Islam.
March 25, 2011, 8:37 pmOwen H. says:
Well, that’s certainly better than claiming that someone doesn’t deserve freedom, and working to prevent them from having it.
March 25, 2011, 8:41 pmOwen H. says:
I’m sorry, but what is?
March 25, 2011, 8:44 pmSarcastro says:
I often mistake people for cargo too! I think it may be related to wanting to exclude certain low quality turban-wearing goods from US ports.
March 25, 2011, 8:47 pmef says:
Jefferson, at America’s first official encounter (I’m guessing) with Islam:
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/FOEA-03-01-02-0569
March 25, 2011, 8:49 pmNorthern Dave says:
The FFs definitely meant any worldview.
The problem we are encountering in the 21st Century is that it isn’t a two way street and Sharia is incompatible with the US Constitution. For that matter so is Roman Catholicism (Vat II only agreed that a democracy could be the vehicle for Roman rule).
We in the West can either:
A) Treat these folks like we have the Communists (whose policies also are inimical to the Constitution) who run every election and come in just behind the Marijuana Party with 50 votes from people who think the name of their candidate is from their homeland or..
B) Accept the FFs intent and defend the legal vehicles (in the US case the Constitution) that make Sharia impossible – things like keeping the execution of converts illegal.
PS – I think porn ought to be illegal and am entitled to work legally towards the elimination of such (puting forth of laws and arguments etc. that child abuse isn’t protected by academic discourse). I am not legally allowed to assassinate porn manufacturers.
The simplest solution is for an informed public to vote down – in party national conventions, in state assemblies, in general elections, etc. – elements of Sharia put forward (child marriage, legal execution of converts, slave ownership legal for Islamic owners of non-Islamic slaves, etc.).
The reality is that it’ll probably all be accepted by the DNC just like their current doctrines are all cribbed from Marx…….
March 25, 2011, 8:50 pmnewrouter says:
“I often mistake people for cargo too! I think it may be related to wanting to exclude certain low quality turban-wearing goods from US ports. ”
nah i just see the buzzing prayer rug as NOT a ringing endorsement of a culture. islam: cutting edge society for the 7th century.
March 25, 2011, 8:53 pmNorthern Dave says:
Ahh, but travelling Cargo can be fun!
http://www.travelblog.org/Oceans-and-Seas/Atlantic/North-Atlantic/blog-530596.html
March 25, 2011, 8:53 pmef says:
Elect them to the Presidency?
March 25, 2011, 9:00 pmSarcastro says:
Totally, we’re importing the head-chopping evil and frightening fecundity of them Mahometans with their crazy prayer rugs and different words for everything! And then there are the lazy drunken Mexicans! And the scheming Chinese! And the feral Africans! Those folks aren’t European at all!!
March 25, 2011, 9:05 pmSarcastro says:
You’re one of them aren’t you! On the Internet, no one knows if you’re worshiping Muhammad.
Ominous.
March 25, 2011, 9:06 pmNM Kerr says:
If you have been paying attention The clown is one of Americas enemies since he hates everything the US stands for
March 25, 2011, 9:09 pmByomtov says:
TMK,
Idiots like this just make it easier for liberals to brand all Republicans as ignorant extremists. I wish he had consulted even a first year law student before opening his mouth.
Maybe Republicans who don’t want to look like ignorant extremists shouldn’t appear on Fischer’s show, unlike Huckabee and Pawlenty, who seem eager to do so.
March 25, 2011, 9:10 pmAlanmt says:
It is this disregard for fact that earned Fischer and the AFA the label “hate group”.
It is not mere negligence. It is either knowing or reckless disregard, such as would, in a civil litigation arena in my state, subject a litigant to punitive damages.
As for the policy of the Constitutional protection, count me among those optimistic Americans who believe we are strong and our values and philosophy are right and that we will adjust and prevail best against terror and medieval autocratic and arbitrary religious doctrine through holding to our original ideals, as evolved to incorporate our developing understandings of truth and humanity.
As opposed to, say, rewriting history to make of our Constitution the partisan and partial document of a fearful and xenophobic people.
March 25, 2011, 9:11 pmNM Kerr says:
Is it fair to say that those who show approval of Fischer by going on his show can be judged by that association?
March 25, 2011, 9:12 pmnewrouter says:
“And then there are the lazy drunken Mexicans! And the scheming Chinese! And the feral Africans! Those folks aren’t European at all!!”
ask the folks at “planned parenthood” about maggie sanger her views of blacks. also the kkk was a demonrat thing. ask wilson.
March 25, 2011, 9:12 pmSarcastro says:
Well, if the demonrats (hilarious!) were racist in the 1940s, I guess bigotry against Muslims can’t be all bad.
March 25, 2011, 9:22 pmnewrouter says:
“Well, if the demonrats (hilarious!) were racist in the 1940s, I guess bigotry against Muslims can’t be all bad.”
you racists did blacks, japs, wops, and krauts in the ’40′s. own it.
March 25, 2011, 9:32 pmCornellian says:
I know of no sources that suggested that anyone during the Framing era understood the Constitution as excluding “Mahometans,” or non-Christians more generally, from either the Free Exercise Clause or the No Religious Test Clause.
As if that ever stopped anyone from declaring what the Founders intended . . .
March 25, 2011, 9:40 pmnewrouter says:
oh and the jews. from demonrat central fdr:
“”The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population…The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany, were Jews.”"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-koch/the-war-agsinst-the-jews_b_838983.html
you fascists known as the demonrat party ef u
March 25, 2011, 9:40 pmMark Field says:
Actually, there are a surprising number of favorable references. And several which expressly say that Islam is protected by the 1A and the “no test” clause.
March 25, 2011, 9:46 pmNorthern Dave says:
“worshiping”? Sarcastro is always a natty speller! Perhaps you are Zuch in disguise!!!!
Put your troubled mind to rest, fellow traveller, I worship Jesus as the Christ…more than enough to get my head taken off when the Revolution comes (probably by people claiming to be Christians…) :-)
March 25, 2011, 9:47 pmSarcastro says:
Not sure how newrouter transmogrified a discussion of how he thinks we should stop importing these 7th century barbarians into how FDR was antisemitic and so I must be too. It is a neat trick though. I’ll bet Alinsky thought of it first, though.
March 25, 2011, 9:53 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I’ve never listened to his show and don’t know anything about it. Is he normally cool and this was a weird aberration? Do his guests take issue with this kind of thing – is debate part of the format? Does he throw stuff like that out to get the conversation going? I have no idea. Am slow to throw out the “idiot” label, but anyone who says “see, that’s how they are” based on a single person might be one.
March 25, 2011, 9:53 pmrb1971 says:
It’s pretty tough to believe that anyone that even took grade school civics, much less has a college degree, could make these statements about the First Amendment. It’s frankly mind-boggling.
Your cogent and erudite arguments have convinced me, for one.
March 25, 2011, 9:54 pmBobDoyle says:
Yes! As is also the case with respect to other prominent (and not so prominent) people who have been given passes regarding just such associations or worse!
March 25, 2011, 10:05 pmnewrouter says:
“Not sure how newrouter transmogrified a discussion of how he thinks we should stop importing these 7th century barbarians into how FDR was antisemitic and so I must be too. It is a neat trick though.”
you be stupid sarcastro. the whole of demonrat party politics is your deal. stupid elites taking the “power”. sarcastro they need your intellectual power in north korea and cuba.
March 25, 2011, 10:11 pmnewrouter says:
“Your cogent and erudite arguments have convinced me, for one.”
hey baracky’s fave co. don’t pay no stinkin’ taxes: the fascist state:
“Yet, the New York Times is reporting that GE’s tax bill amounted to zero in 2010, while it was also able to claim a $3.2 billion tax benefit. The report credits GE’s “fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore,” with the accomplishment, noting that its tax department is stocked with former government officials and is known as the “world’s best tax law firm.””
March 25, 2011, 10:16 pmhttp://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2011/03/25/nytimes-tax-man-owes-ge-not-vice-versa/
rpt says:
Alinsky put FDR in office, after he invented email.
March 25, 2011, 10:24 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
More like the 17th. There wasn’t much that was comparatively better in European culture until about the 17th century, either.
March 25, 2011, 10:24 pmptt says:
What if we just know who and what Bryan Fischer is and are familiar with his oeuvre…
March 25, 2011, 10:24 pmSarcastro says:
Jeez. Well, if you didn’t want to talk about how awful Islam is, you could have just said so!
Still not sure how I gotta own the philosophy a political party had 70 years ago. Probably something to do with all demonrats thinking the same. Not like the diversity of the GOP. Though I thought diversity was bad…
March 25, 2011, 10:27 pmnewrouter says:
“There wasn’t much that was comparatively better in European culture until about the 17th century, either.
yea and newton says ef u. you allah heads are idiots.
March 25, 2011, 10:33 pmnewrouter says:
“Still not sure how I gotta own the philosophy a political party had 70 years ago.”
you might try changing your name and picture fool!
March 25, 2011, 10:37 pmTMK75 says:
“Maybe Republicans who don’t want to look like ignorant extremists shouldn’t appear on Fischer’s show, unlike Huckabee and Pawlenty, who seem eager to do so.”
Well Democrats can sit in a racist bastard’s church for 20 years and get elected president, so why should that hurt Republicans?
March 25, 2011, 10:40 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
ptt, when I wrote “am slow” there is an implied “I” in there: “I am slow”. If you are familiar with his oeuvre, draw any conclusions you like. Draw any conclusions that you like even if you aren’t familiar, I don’t care. I don’t listen to talk radio and don’t know anything about him. And don’t much care to, to be honest. I don’t like listening to people I can’t talk back to, and explain how they are wrong.
March 25, 2011, 10:41 pm: )
newrouter says:
“Sarcastro says:”
what? kill: jews , gays the che playbook? commie loser.
March 25, 2011, 10:59 pmSarcastro says:
Good lord, it has no sense of humor! And it seems to prefer linking current news stories to engaging people.
Turing test fail.
March 25, 2011, 11:04 pmDon K says:
Well, he’s a spokesperson for the American Family Association. I’ll let the interested reader Google them and decide for him or herself. Suffice to say they spend about 99% of their effort in rhetorical fagbashing (the usual – promotion of bogus studies, misrepresentation of legitimate ones, intimating that any recognition of gays or gay relationships would cause millions of straight men to get divorced).
I suspect (but can’t prove) that in their heart of hearts they believe the First Amendment was intended only to protect fundamentalist Protestantism (after all, how many papists were in the First Congress?), and they’re making nice to Catholics right now just to gain support.
March 25, 2011, 11:15 pmElbabe says:
I like the part where Sarcastro attempts to be sarcastic to newrouter, but fails because newrouter is one of the people who is literally too ignorant to make fun of. At some point, extremist viewpoints become indistinguishable from a satire of that same viewpoint.
Additional Reading
March 25, 2011, 11:24 pmElbabe says:
Also, upon reading the Wikipedia page about the AFA, things come into focus. Some notable AFA positions:
*Eliminate funding for the National Endowment of the Arts because some forms of artistic expression are “scatological.”
*AIDS patients should be quarantined.
*No more construction permits should be granted for Mosques in the United States.
*An Arizona Representative should be arrested for being gay.
*The Jews control the media.
They’re essentially Westboro Baptist Church without the colorful signs.
March 25, 2011, 11:34 pmJohn Burgess says:
Elbabe: AFA lacks the media savvy of WBC, too. AFA can barely get any TV time at all, whereas WBC seems to be there every time you turn on the tube.
March 25, 2011, 11:56 pmRicardo says:
According to Wikipedia, these guys apparently think Hindus are un-American also:
Of course, some Muslims and (maybe) Jews have criticized the Trinitarian ideas of Christianity in the past as somewhat less than full devotion to monotheism.
March 26, 2011, 12:13 amAngela says:
There was in the South….
And anyway, the first Muslim known to have traveled to America came here in the 1500′s.
March 26, 2011, 12:20 amCornellian says:
Well, he’s a spokesperson for the American Family Association. I’ll let the interested reader Google them and decide for him or herself. Suffice to say they spend about 99% of their effort in rhetorical fagbashing (the usual — promotion of bogus studies, misrepresentation of legitimate ones, intimating that any recognition of gays or gay relationships would cause millions of straight men to get divorced).
Well of course. These days, “family values” is just a code phrase for “obsessed with male-male relationships.”
March 26, 2011, 12:30 amMichael says:
It is good to see the Klan is alive and well.
America is the Constitution and the People. Those who would try to enslave some of the population solely on the basis of belief or lack thereof in any faith are both enemies of the Constitution and enemies of the People. There is no worse form of hypocrite and traitor than this.
March 26, 2011, 1:36 amMichael says:
And the first Muslim to be sworn in on a Quran did so on the one belonging to Thomas Jefferson.
Since we’re talking about the Founding Fathers, I’ll quote a little Jefferson…
“We find in the writings of (Jesus’) biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms, and precepts of the purist morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence, and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be the intentions of the authors who related them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They show there was a character, a subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above suspicion as being interpolations from their hands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials and ascribing each to its original author? The difference is obvious to the eye and to the understanding, and we may read as we run to each his part; and I will venture to affirm he who, as I have done, will undertake to winnow this grain from the chaff, will find it not to require a moment’s consideration. The parts fall asunder of themselves, as would those of an image of metal and clay.”
Jefferson understood that the church corrupted the message of Christ out of desire for power for itself and, as a matter of consequence and not intent, its flock. His friend John Adams understood this as well.
Not only did Jefferson possess and read with regularity the religious texts of numerous religions, but he committed an act of freedom of religion in its almost purest and most democratic form. He created, not through conclave or committee, but entirely on his own, a Bible of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
March 26, 2011, 1:55 amMike P. says:
This cult around Jefferson is getting a bit much. Do we need to be reminded where he was when the Constitution was being debated?
The unwritten constitution is far more important than the written constitution, in my view. There can be little doubt that the unwritten constitution presumed a particular type of Protestant Christianity would exist among the people.
As to the legal issue, yes, it covers everyone.
March 26, 2011, 2:18 amRicardo says:
No, he took over Benjamin Franklin’s job of U.S. minister to France. But it’s not clear how that is relevant. Perhaps you can point to some historical scholarship to the contrary but the traditional understanding has been that James Madison proposed the First Amendment and drew on Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom when he did so.
As for the “unwritten constitution,” what relevance does it have for legal or civic questions that come up regarding religious tolerance? America’s population was mostly Protestant at one time because that was the religion of the people who happened to live there (although these various sects of Protestants did not get along well with each other at all, hence the aforementioned Virginia statute). Immigration brought more Catholics, Jews and Orthodox Christians and eventually Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists and Hindus on the West Coast. Laws starting with the Chinese Exclusion Acts and ending with the Immigration Act of 1924 gradually restricted immigration of non-WASPS. This nativist objection to non-WASP immigration was finally overridden with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Whatever the “unwritten constitution” said at one point in the past, it has explicitly been amended in the post-Civil Rights Era.
March 26, 2011, 2:51 amRich Rostrom says:
Fischer is a dim fool. Consider this quotation from President John Tyler, who, in a letter dated July 10, 1843, gave eloquent and indeed prophetic expression to the principle of religious freedom:
The United States have adventured upon a great and noble
experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the
absence of all previous precedent — that of total
separation of Church and State. No religious establishment
by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from
all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker
after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are
open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an
established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of
man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith.
The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have
the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to
worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might
erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is
the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political
Institutions….
The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions
takes up his abode among us with none to make him
afraid… and the Aegis of the Government is over him to
defend and protect him.
Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such
are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our
system of free government would be imperfect without it.
The body may be oppressed and manacled and yet survive;
but if the mind of man be fettered, its energies and
faculties perish, and what remains is of the earth,
earthly. Mind should be free as the light or as the air.
And Tyler was a deeply conservative man.
March 26, 2011, 3:05 amRich Rostrom says:
Fischer is a dim fool. Consider this quotation from President John Tyler, who, in a letter dated July 10, 1843, gave eloquent and indeed prophetic expression to the principle of religious freedom:
The United States have adventured upon a great and noble
experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the
absence of all previous precedent — that of total
separation of Church and State. No religious establishment
by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from
all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker
after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are
open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an
established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of
man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith.
The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have
the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to
worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might
erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is
the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political
Institutions….
The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions
takes up his abode among us with none to make him
afraid… and the Aegis of the Government is over him to
defend and protect him.
Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such
are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our
system of free government would be imperfect without it.
The body may be oppressed and manacled and yet survive;
but if the mind of man be fettered, its energies and
faculties perish, and what remains is of the earth,
earthly. Mind should be free as the light or as the air.
And Tyler was a deeply conservative man.
March 26, 2011, 3:05 amMichael says:
I Love this argument, the Liberty College argument. It is effectively this: “The Constitution is irrelevant because what we want, the power that we demand, is rightfully ours and is really what the founders intended. What the founders wrote down is immaterial.”
Yes, Mike, in fact there can be nothing but reasoned doubt and skepticism about the “unwritten Constitution.” Your view is based on the same faith that insisted that the Sun revolved around the Earth. You may have no doubt, but any rational person would be full of doubt. First off, because the Constitution was a blank sheet of vellum. There was no reason NOT to write down their intentions. Second off, because the letters and documents like the Federalist Papers go into great detail of the rationale behind the choices made in the creation of the Constitution and they make no compelling case that Protestant Sharia law was to be the law of the land. In fact, they make great arguments for distancing religion and politics. Given what crummy Christians politics creates, and what lousy public policies religious lobbying gives us, I’d say they hit the nail on the head.
So, while a fairytale version of history is all well and good, it certainly is not something any reasonable person would claim there could be little doubt over.
March 26, 2011, 4:06 amHarry Eagar says:
I don’t know how many of you grew up in the South in the ’50s, but Fischer is just repeating the barber shop talk of that time and place.
I have had many shocks in reading American history, but none more stunning than learning that the Baptists were the leading organization lobbying for First Amendment speech protections in the 1830s. Comparing that against the Baptists I knew (which was practically everybody), I couldn’t believe it at first.
March 26, 2011, 4:50 amRicardo says:
Thomas Jefferson made his pronouncement of the wall of separation in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut. It’s funny what being a religious minority does to people’s views.
March 26, 2011, 5:34 amdearieme says:
People here always disagree when I say it, but I’d have thought that the religious bits of the Constitution are utterly transparent. What sort of ass can imagine that Religion = Christianity beats me. But if it were true, it would create real problems – for example, are Mormons or Roman Catholics to be treated as Christians? So it’s altogether better to treat Religion = what the original readers of the Constitution took religion to be. That leaves just tiny problems along the lines of “What about purported followers of Odin?”.
March 26, 2011, 5:42 amArkady says:
Is it possible that newrouter is a particularly stupid Turing Machine?
March 26, 2011, 7:52 amAnderson says:
Re: Muslim countries which practice religious intolerance, n.b. how many of those are democracies respecting the rule of law?
Many Muslims vote with their feet to come to America. A few of those bring intolerance with them, and those are the ones you hear about on the news and the blogs. But compared to the Fischers in America, I doubt that there are proportionately more bigoted Muslims than bigoted Christians.
March 26, 2011, 8:48 amAlan Polonsky says:
When I first read the original post critical of Fischer, I thought “How easy to pick on such low hanging fruit” and then I read the comments.
Unbelievable that anyone could seriously defend Fischer and yet numerous posters obviously agree with him.
Amazing
March 26, 2011, 9:03 amJon Rowe says:
Interesting thing is one might conclude as Fischer et al. want, that immediately soured Jefferson et al. to Islam. But it didn’t. I’ve read everything Jefferson has written on Islam and he thought the religion in principle to be exactly like Christianity. A religion that was valid at its heart but corrupted by dogma. I can show you the quotations if you’d like. And J. Adams and Franklin seemed to think the same thing.
March 26, 2011, 9:09 amGiant Frog says:
Likewise, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Virginia statute protecting religious freedom, which he drafted, deliberately covered “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination,” and that a proposal to mention Christ in the bill “was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend” all religions.
But that’s very obviously not true: ask a Rastafarian, an Aztec or a non-Amerind trying to practice in the misnamed “Native American Church”.
But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?
Simple: RICO. Is the KKK a religion? Is the Mafia a religion? Is Norte del Valle a religion? Is Islam a religion? Who cares if they call their Don “Allah”, as long as they’re corrupt and run a criminal enterprise.
March 26, 2011, 9:25 amOwen H. says:
I believe it was Madison who said that any government which can hold Christianity over all other religions has the power to hold one sect of Christianity over all others.
Freedom of Religion is important even for the majority faith. I also find it disturbing to see one faith demonized and blamed for all the world’s ills, and to see how many think they shouldn’t have any rights. Too many bad parallels.
March 26, 2011, 9:30 amJ. W. Lung says:
Muslims are clearly protected by the First Amendment, which by its terms only limits the power of Congress.
In fact, at the time of the adopting of the 1st Amendment, Muslims, as well as all athiests, were under many legal disabilities because of the tenets of their belief system. Both Muslims and athiests, for example, were incompetent to serve as witnesses in legal proceedings.
The comment in question is probably accurate, because States remained free to establish of disestablish religion(s) as they deemed appropriate.
March 26, 2011, 9:41 amJon Rowe says:
Yup and Madison in his notes for the Remonstrance was aware of the “what is a real Christian” debate? If only “Christians” can get establishment aid, then what about Mormons? They call themselves “Christians” but orthodox Christians say they are not. Madison didn’t want courts having to deal with such issues. And Massachusetts did. In fact it was those very issues that led to Mass. doing away with its state establishment in 1833.
A lot of folks think separation is the liberal position, with pro-religious establishments, the conservative position. Consequently the liberal Christians of the era would be pro-separation, the conservatives pro-Establishment. But in reality the sects were all over the map. The Baptist fundamentalists as noted above supported Jefferson and Madison’s VA idea. And there were plenty of “liberal unitarian Christians” like Joseph Story himself who seemed to be pro-mild Christian establishment, consistent with religious liberty.
The problem is when orthodox Christians who want to fund different “Christian” sects look over to Joseph Story and say since you disbelieve in the Trinity and Christ as the exclusive way to salvation, you really aren’t a “Christian.”
This happened in Mass. 1783 even before the Dedham decision where it happened again. In BOTH cases the orthodox side lost and liberal Christian sects (aka what the orthodox considered fake heretics) ended up with establishment aid.
March 26, 2011, 9:43 amSarcastro says:
Though kissing Allah’s ring is a bit more difficult than it is for most Dons.
While we’re persecuting religions for the actions of a subset of one sect, we should probably arrest all Christians for pedophilia.
March 26, 2011, 9:49 ambailey says:
So does this mean we should import more of the throwbacks from the Muslim world to bring their main cultural additions of jew hating and explosions?
March 26, 2011, 10:22 amMark Field says:
The Baptists had a long history of supporting religious freedom even by the 1830s. Isaac Bachus was one of the leaders in the fight for the VA Statute for Religious Freedom.
March 26, 2011, 10:46 amDave N. says:
It is always interesting in these First Amendment discussions that people start off with the premise that the founding fathers (and the people of the new United States) were a deeply religious and overwhelmingly Christian group, aside from a few Unitarians like the Adams Family and deists like Jefferson.
However, that greatly oversimplifies the religious history of the United States. The First Great Awakening (1730s-1740s) undoubtedly influenced the founders, in part because Benjamin Franklin chronicled it favorably, particularly the activities of one of its leaders, George Whitefield.
While the First Great Awakening influenced how religious people addressed their relationship with God, it didn’t do much in terms of making non-religious people into religious ones.
That happened during the Second Great Awakening (1800-1840s) significantly changed America, including a great influx of the American populace into various churches.
The concept of the United States as a religious nation has its roots in the Second Great Awakening, which post-dated the Constitutional Convention. In fact, a strong argument can be made that the first truly religious President was Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837.
March 26, 2011, 11:14 amByomtov says:
TMK75,
Well Democrats can sit in a racist bastard’s church for 20 years and get elected president, so why should that hurt Republicans?
Ah. The inevitable fall-back.
When Pawlenty and Huckabee and the others distance themselves from Fischer as Obama did from Wright maybe I’ll pay attention. Right now they are fawning over him, and will continue to do so, I bet, throughout the campaign. Why? Because he commands a large following among Republican voters.
Laura,
I’ve never listened to his show and don’t know anything about it. Is he normally cool and this was a weird aberration? Do his guests take issue with this kind of thing — is debate part of the format?
No, his guests do not take issue with him. They agree vigorously with what he says. For example, see Huckabee acting scummy here.
March 26, 2011, 11:14 amDave N. says:
As a side note, “Baptist” as a term doesn’t describe very much theologically — other than a belief in baptism by immersion and (usually) a congregational style of church governance. “Baptists” run the gamut from the morons of the Westboro Baptist Church to the American Baptist Convention, which is a mainline Protestant denomination.
I suspect most people, when they hear the word “Baptist,” think of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest Protestant denomination (by membership) in this country.
March 26, 2011, 11:25 amTMK75 says:
Byomtov, I was just being a sarcastic wise-ass. I don’t think either one is a wise decision. Republican leadership should not associate with a wingnut like Fischer.
But I also do not think Obama can so easily throw off a man he spent 20 years revering. The media pulled a grand snow job covering for Obama and all his radical associations (not to mention his utter lack of qualifications or leadership experience), and now the entire world is paying for it.
There is a clear double standard at play – the same as when Republicans are caught demonstrating less than stellar family values.
March 26, 2011, 11:36 amArthur Kirkland says:
“Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one . . .”
— Gordon Sumner
March 26, 2011, 11:47 amJoe says:
Baptists were the leading organization lobbying for First Amendment speech protections in the 1830s
This might shock you too:
“Southern Baptist Convention actually passed a pro-choice resolution in 1971 at the annual meeting held that year in St. Louis.”
http://lenexabaptist.com/pdf/documents/LegalHistoryofAbortion.pdf
March 26, 2011, 11:48 ampublic_defender says:
Our “man made” laws generally let you discriminate privately. Conservative Christians specifically demand the right to discriminate against gay people.
March 26, 2011, 12:45 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Newton was born and worked in the 17th and 18th centuries. Thanks for picking a good example for me.
March 26, 2011, 1:00 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » EUGENE VOLOKH ON Islam And The First Amendment. “I know of no sources that suggested that anyone du… says:
[...] VOLOKH ON Islam And The First Amendment. “I know of no sources that suggested that anyone during the Framing era understood the [...]
March 26, 2011, 1:01 pmDanube of Thought says:
It has been my understanding that a number of the Framers were intent on ensuring (“congess shall make no law…”) that the states’ various established religions not be subject to congressional meddling. They would have been appalled to learn that the 14th Amendment would later be interpreted to convert their shield into a sword to be wielded against them.
March 26, 2011, 1:14 pmSarcastro says:
Yes, you characterize Muslims fairly. You and newrouter should form a club. And maybe Giant Frog.
Generalizing negative characteristics to an entire population – awesome nowadays, not so awesome back in the 1950s though. Then it was bigotry.
March 26, 2011, 1:20 pmNM Kerr says:
No aberration here he is the IDIOT who advocated killing all grizzly bears as god’s will, Justified the gencide of the American Indian population becasue they were not Christian and said the the recent award of the Medal of Honor to Staff Sargent Giunta was proof the The medal had become feminized ( Did you know that feminine is bad?m< He does.).
Sescribing him as an idiot is being charitable, the other alternative is calling him a malignant sociopaths bigot who is ignorant of history and murderous in intent,
March 26, 2011, 1:24 pmNM Kerr says:
Worse? Even Alinsky is saintlike in comparison to that slime and I think Alinsky deserved a couple of decades in jail,
March 26, 2011, 1:27 pmern says:
I’ve read enough of the writings of the men who signed the Declaration and the Constitution to believe that most of them were sincere believers in the Christian faith, including men like Washington and Adams. Some obviously had deeper faith than others, while some bounced back and forth between enlightenment deism and more traditional Christian faith over the course of their lives (Benjamin Franklin being a good example). Trying to back out of this fact seems rather silly. One might find a handful who would reject basic Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, but it would be only a handful. Like most educated people at the time, there was significant doubt about religious truths, but nearly all accepted one form of Christianity or another.
Of course the religious history of America is complicated, but while the Great Awakenings certainly changed the flavor of Christian religious expression in America, they didn’t really change the foundational theological expression of it: which was, in the founding era, predominately protestantism.
The Great Awakenings did little more than change the predominate expression of that protestantism from rationalist Calvinism to revivalist Wesleyanism. America was mostly Christian before and mostly Christian after, only in a different way.
What this means for interpreting the Constitution is debatable, but I’d say that suggestions that the founders intended the first amendment to apply only to Christians is an argument primarily from ignorance, and secondarily (in some cases) from bigotry.
March 26, 2011, 1:29 pmNM Kerr says:
Worse? Even Alinsky is saintlike in comparison to that slime and I think Alinsky deserved a couple of de
\ Newton used Algebra and Arab astronomy to create his laws and calculus. try again that one backfired
March 26, 2011, 1:32 pmrufusleeking says:
I accept the Volokh view. But not the inviolability of a religious practice or even belief when it runs afoul of other legal or Constitutional mandates. We have already barred voodoo animal sacrifices done in cruel ways or Christian Science practice which harms children by medical neglect. So should not be able to consider barring adhearnce to a religious scripture which lays out an edict for all its followers to join a concerted global genocidal plan of war?
Putting aside, for a moment, which religion does and which religion does not do this, or evidence on a vast scale an outcome of mass death on every continent, is it not in our Constitutional power to interdi ct such a practice of religion that was effectively waging war on us? Must we wait for each incident of deadly proof to take place and not interdict the plan for more? If it waged war on all other religions, is it not our Constitutional duty to interdict it to preserve our First Amendment freedoms rather than see them eroded by violent intimidation?
Now, as to which religion might fall under this category, I remain open to scrutinizing any and all. But we most certainly cannot absolve Islam and its warmaking Koran and prophet and adherants associated with an unprecedented global and American bloodbath as being the most obvious offender.
March 26, 2011, 1:43 pmbailey says:
No, jew hatred and wanting to bomb is an anomoly in the Islamic world. Let’s bring more over from the backward jew hating hell holes they inhabit to poison this country.
March 26, 2011, 1:49 pmSarcastro says:
Your scholarship on the attitudes of millions of Muslims is impressive. Some might argue with your sampling only Jew hating incidents may color your ideas about Muslims in general, but I trust you.
It’s amazing the slavering barbarians we’ve imported so far have yet to give into their cultural imperative of Jew hating. Probably just having evil babies and biding their time…
March 26, 2011, 2:04 pmmr burns says:
What if the practice of a particular religion entails actions which the secular law considers to be crimes ? For example the Thugee and Aztec religions require ritual murder . What is the difference between imprisoning practioners of a religion for the crimes their religions prescribes for them and banning the religion itself ?
March 26, 2011, 2:12 pmDave N. says:
erm,
I agree the religious viewpoints of the founders are complicated. I would even agree that 18th century Unitarianism was much closer to Christianity than its 21st century counterpart. My bigger point was that the Second Great Awakening, in particular, made the United States more religious both in the sense of actual, as opposed to nominal, religious belief and in church membership — and I stand by my assertion that the first deeply religious President was probably Andrew Jackson.
Additionally, I think it is counterfactual to argue, as some do, that the Constitution should be interpreted as wanting the United States to be a “Christian country” that tolerated those who believe otherwise.
March 26, 2011, 2:18 pmJon Rowe says:
A lot to unpack here. You say most FFs were devout believers in the “Christian” religion and you include Washington and John Adams. You say only a handful deny the Trinity. You don’t define the minimums for what it means to be a mere Christian and what relation the Trinity has to it.
I think J. Adams is a good test case. He considered himself a “Christian.” He was a devout theist. Yet, he bitterly and militantly rejected all orthodox Trinitarian doctrines and eternal damnation. Further he thought the biblical canon was divinely inspired but errant and fallible (that is, he thought the canon contained “interpolations”).
Does this qualify as “Christianity”?
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816:
March 26, 2011, 2:23 pmJon Rowe says:
Likewise, you said only a “handful” rejected the Trinity. But does that mean for those where we can’t find “smoking gun” quotations rejecting the Trinity we need conclude they AFFIRMED the Trinity? No. Both sides bear the burden of proof. George Washington, for instance, I can’t find evidence of him rejecting the Trinity and cognate orthodox doctrines like I can for John Adams. But the man, who constantly spoke of God and Providence virtually NEVER spoke of Jesus Christ, making it almost impossible to determine where he really stood. Though it did seem like he was hiding something. In over 20,000 pages of GW’s known recorded private and public addresses the words “Jesus Christ” are found only once in an address not written by him but given under his imprimatur. In NONE of GW’s private writings (where again, he talks CONSTANTLY of God and Providence) does GW ever mention Jesus by name or example; it’s as though JC was never on GW’s mind.
March 26, 2011, 2:28 pmPolybius says:
As an atheist I don’t have an invisible man in the fight. Yeah, we can say all religions are equal before the law but that does not mean they are equal in any moral or practical sense. Islam is barbaric. There is no getting around the fact that Muslims believe the perfect man is one who sanctioned the raping of his captives over the bodies of their husbands and sons he had just slain before selling them into slavery. That there are billions of people who see nothing wrong with this just makes them a threat to any attempts by mankind to build any sort of decent civilization.
We can’t afford to pretend that Islam is just another religion. It is not. It is a political system based on violent expansion and forced conversion. It has its own legal system and is incompatible with civilization and modernity when it is practiced as intended. That is what makes it different.
So yeah, legally we can’t treat it differently but it needs to be confronted and stopped just like we would confront socialism, or communism, or racism or any of the other hate creeds responsible for mass deaths and destruction. Islam is an existential threat to liberty and all we hold dear. We can and should outlaw the worst aspects of it and its legal code of Sharia.
Before 9/11 we had the luxury of pretending that Islam was just another religion the same as all of the others. Since then we have learned differently. I dare anyone to read the history of Mohammed and come away anything less than appalled. Osama taught us a lesson but it was not the one he intended.
March 26, 2011, 2:28 pmhighplains says:
Isn’t this simply a matter of correctly defining the term “religion”? I would suggest that if the religion in question functions as a governing political ideology – as the sole source of laws and governance in several countries, with several past and current insurgencies underway to extend it political suvereignty – if such a doctrine requires physical, real world conquest and the destruction/subjugation of every other form of government on the planet, to what extent can it really be classified as a “religion?”
March 26, 2011, 2:34 pmByomtov says:
TMK75,
OK. But even if you think Obama can’t “so easily throw off” Wright, at a minimum you have to concede that he did, as matter of simple fact, make a speech denouncing Wright’s statements. And when he and Michelle withdrew from the church he said that the “divisive statements” by Wright “sharply conflict with our own views.”
Later he said that Wright,
expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America…
Now, maybe you think that’s not enough, or that it was just rhetoric, or whatever. But it’s still a long way from what any of the GOP candidates will do with respect to Fischer.
March 26, 2011, 2:36 pmBrad Harris says:
Islamism isn’t a religion.
March 26, 2011, 2:38 pmIt’s a political construct designed for conquering.
You need to get into the Koran, understand their precepts, read the Sura, read the Hadith and then you can really understand that this is not a perversion, their doing exactly what this books says!
Islam and the First Amendment at Paul M. Jones says:
[...] Which is as it should be. Read the whole thing. Via The Volokh Conspiracy » Islam and the First Amendment. [...]
March 26, 2011, 2:41 pmSarcastro says:
Yeah, Islam’s central authority makes for a monolithic faith that is easily described as a ‘hate creed.’ And if many Muslims claim to be ‘moderate’ or whatnot, well they’re just not practicing sharia as intended and don’t count!
Everyone knows religions are based on their founder. That’s why all Mormons are violent polytheists, and all Jews are nomadic, conquering tribes.
And outlawing sharia is both Constitutional, and practical! If government doesn’t start getting more involved in private relationships between people asap, American’s fragile civilization will crumble!
March 26, 2011, 2:43 pmByomtov says:
Dave N.,
Indeed, Washington himself said as much in his famous letter to Newport’s Touro Synagogue, the first in the US:
March 26, 2011, 2:45 pmtysm says:
Problem is ISLAM is not a religion. It is a political philosphy – hence not protected by the 1st. Throw the bums out.
March 26, 2011, 2:47 pmJon Rowe says:
The Christian-unitarian-universalism of the anti-Great Awakeners arguably had a greater impact on the Founding Fathers. Men like Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, Samuel West, et al. They were the explicit theological enemies of the Great Awakening.
March 26, 2011, 2:55 pmSarcastro says:
Yes, libertarians pray 5 times a day too. They gotta face Chicago though.
March 26, 2011, 2:57 pmMichael says:
Since when has the accusation of Jew-hatred not applied to all gentiles? I must have missed a memo because, last I checked, all Europeans were anti-semites. As are Asians for doing business with Arab nations, and as are any Americans who don’t believe in genocide against Arabs…
Al Queda is a bunch of racist, bigoted, violent jerks. And if you swap Islamic and Jewish in your statement.. well, let’s just say that you and bin Laden have more in common than different.
March 26, 2011, 3:14 pmMichael says:
Neo-Conservative Christianity is a political philosophy, not a religion, can we throw them out too?
March 26, 2011, 3:15 pmMichael says:
Any Christian originalist that does not stone their women to death for adultery is not practicing Christianity as intended.
This is really sad, that a person would be so personally deluded and hateful as to not just rationalize taking liberty from others for strictly bigoted reasons, but to actually feel anger and hatred of others for NOT being radical. You are attacking moderates because they don’t give you enough justification to hate them, and that fact is, in your mind, justification to hate them even more.
Honestly, if this is really how you feel and think, you should see a professional. Politics aside, that kind of dehumanizing and radical justification for hatred is too easily justification for violence and crime. There’s deep rooted paranoia here that is unhealthy.
March 26, 2011, 3:22 pmhighplains says:
Recent successful or partially successful insurgencies to establish islamic theocracies and/or impose islamic law:
1. Islamic revolution in Iran
2. Taliban in Afghanistan
3. Hamas in Gaza
4. Aceh Province, Indonesia
5. Kadyrov in Chechnya
6. Pakistani Taliban in the autonomous region of NW of Pak.
7. Expansion through genocide of the Islamist arab government in Khartoum, Sudan
8. Al Shabab in Somalia
The thing we call “Religion” under the 1st amendment doesn’t usually behave like this.
March 26, 2011, 3:27 pmKen says:
I could find many quotes from Bryan Fischer that would put him in a bad light.
However, I won’t, because his demonization by the Left is part of a larger plan to shut down, shut up, and ultimately eliminate the conservative half of America.
I note that Fischer, although generally idiotic, does not advocate guerrilla warfare or sabotage. His opponents do.
Fischer doesn’t use a vast network of degenerate scum, linked by Facebook, twitter, and sexual promiscuity on a vast scale, to single out solitary free-lance journalists and murder them. His opponents do.
Fischer doesn’t call for the assassination of his political opponents. His demonic opponents do.
Fischer doesn’t set churches on fire. The Leftists, cackling with the joy of sex, drugs, and knowing that they are immune from the current recession, do.
March 26, 2011, 3:35 pmstrict says:
“Islam isn’t a religion.” So far at least three people in this thread have made this claim.
Was this a talking point on Beck or Rush or something?
It’s pretty wacky.
(p.s. “Rush is right!” is a fantastic slogan)
March 26, 2011, 3:42 pmstrict says:
Edit, four people. Is this some new thing going aroung the Internet? Islam isn’t a religion, lol
March 26, 2011, 3:43 pmJim O'Sullivan says:
I have a specific recollection about the debate in one state (I forget which) concerning the “no religious test” clause from a research project in law school. I didn’t make a note of it at the time, as it was not related to my point. But I recall that the major Anti-Federalist argument was just that: “why, this horrifying clause would allow Catholics, Jews, and even – gasp – Mahometans to hold Federal office.” The response was not quite a courageous as Justice Iredell’s. The Federalists said, “oh, don’t worry. That’s just a polite way of saying you can be any kind of Protestant you want.” Sort of like “all other persons” was a polite way of saying slaves.
It doesn’t matter what Jefferson thought it meant. He was in Paris a the time, and didn’t take part in its drafting. So, it may have been worded to mean what you think it means, but it wasn’t always sold that way.
That’s the problem with original intent: what they said, or what they meant. How do you know?
March 26, 2011, 3:45 pmNM Kerr says:
<
It will a thousands of years for actions like that to equal the 1800 years or so that “Christian” nations raped and pillaged around the world.
Which of those are nearly as murderous as even Belgium “Christianizing” the Congo much less Spain and the British empire trying to bring “Christan values” to the people they murdered?
People of European decent criticism Islam for antisemitism takes truly courageous levels of both hubris and ignorance.
March 26, 2011, 4:05 pmMichael says:
This thing we call “religion” has, in fact, always behaved like this in every part of the world. Which is why we have state religion, no state interference in religion, and no religious interference in state matters if we can at all avoid it.
You’d be well served to look at prohibition, Salem Witch Trials, Scopes Trial, Crusades, the origins of the Church of England, God’s Army in Burma, the Lord’s Resistance Army, Christiandom, Hitler’s remarks on the necessity to protect Christianity and its moral foundation from liberals, artists, and Jews, Westboro Baptist Church, the entire history of the Catholic Church and Catholic Empire, the Jewish revolts in the Roman provinces.. and that is just the Abrahamic monotheistic religion points of historical interest that I can recall off the top of my head while making a sandwich.
This is what people do with religion. They use it to subjugate, steal, enslave, and kill other people. Which religion is irrelevant. And attacking people’s rights and freedoms for belonging to one is no different than imposing religious rule. To ban Islam, you effectively embrace the rationality and justification of Sharia Law.
March 26, 2011, 4:06 pmIronclad says:
“Islam is not a religion” is not a talking point. It is the conclusion of many that have had the “pleasure” of living in a Muslim state where no dissent or discussion of religion is tolerated other than the “official” line. It is not difficult to understand why when Muslims take over that other beliefs disappear – they tax them heavily, they do not allow structures of worship other than their own to be built and they discriminate openly against others. Their whole religious code is a document designed to crush and snuff out other beliefs. Not by conversion of belief – by force and pressure.
When I said a woman’s testimony was half a man, I meant by legal requirement. Inheritance too, not having a parent cut her off, by legal requirement that she receive no more. There is a huge difference there.
March 26, 2011, 4:08 pmhighplains says:
Michael said:
“. . . Politics aside, that kind of dehumanizing and radical justification for hatred is too easily justification for violence and crime. There’s deep rooted paranoia here that is unhealthy.”
At 3:27, I wrote a list of eight countries/regions that have recently imposed strict islamic law on their female populations. In several of those regions, repressive measures were undertaken in the past, or are currently under way, to restrict the activities of those clerics who advocated for the imposition of islamic law. Do you suppose the women in those countries who objected to forced veiling and gender apartied becoming a normalised part of their community (and supported repressive measures for that reason) were also guilty of “hatred and bigotry”?
March 26, 2011, 4:17 pmbailey says:
So,NM, people of European descent can’t criticize the grotesque jew hatred of the Islamic world. We can’t notice the wonderful way in which the murder of a family of five jews, includin a three month old baby, is celebrated by the adherents of that wonderful religion. In fact, we should import more of their wonderful culture to enlighten us.
March 26, 2011, 4:21 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Hubris, maybe. But I think it may come more from hard-earned wisdom than ignorance.
* And other sins the West stopped committing a while back.
March 26, 2011, 4:23 pmJoe says:
The thing we call “Religion” under the 1st amendment doesn’t usually behave like this.
Do you know why we have a 1A in the first place?
March 26, 2011, 4:25 pmstrict says:
Ironclad, (and the many others here who are making your absurd argument), do you realize there is a difference between “religion with oppressive doctrines” and “not a religion”? You seem to think that proving that some Islamic tenets and practices are backwards and illiberal is the same as proving that Islam is not a religion.
March 26, 2011, 4:25 pmstrict says:
Person from Porlock,
How can you say that the “West” has stopped committing antisemitism? I’ve seen aggressive antisemitism in Europe, from a neo-Nazi shoving over a little Jewish kid on his bike, to personally being sneered at and called “zhyd” in Poland when I refused to give up a train seat to some punk who demanded it.
People like to pretend that Europe has been peaceful and civilized forever, when really it has been like 20 years. Before then was Papadopoulos, Franco, Salazar, all the Communists, etc.
March 26, 2011, 4:38 pmArthur Kirkland says:
This thread tests the conclusion that organized religion has generated nearly as much good as it has bad on Earth.
March 26, 2011, 4:42 pmhighplains says:
Strict:
” . . . do you realize there is a difference between “religion with oppressive doctrines” and “not a religion”?”
The various islamic insurgencies around the world are not fighting on behalf of a “religion,” they are fighting to establish a particular form of government – an islamic government to impose islamic law – complete with courts, laws, police and armies.
March 26, 2011, 4:52 pmMichael says:
Stalin fought Hitler. So, using your argument that oppressing or acting out violence against a people is just if they have done something unjust, is Stalin a good guy or is Hitler?
You think you are arguing against oppression, but you are arguing for oppression that favors you over someone else. You are, in argument, no better than those with which you take issue. That is the point.
In my country, because of theocratic BS, women have to cover parts of themselves in public as well, or risk fines and jail time, possibly being listed in public databases as deviants and sexual predators/offenders.
March 26, 2011, 4:54 pmMichael says:
Exactly.
March 26, 2011, 4:54 pmbailey says:
What,can’t one apply one’s reason and notice that countries where Islam dominates are backwards, inhumane, jew and most other thing hating hellholes. In this day and age, how can one conclude otherwise. Saying that the West had the Inquisition doesn’t elevate the current depravity of the Islamic world.
March 26, 2011, 4:57 pmstrict says:
So? We aren’t talking about insurgencies. We are talking about Islam. Your argument makes no sense.
March 26, 2011, 4:59 pmElbabe says:
Seems like some people are failing to separate the religion from the acts of its followers. I don’t like religion at all, I’m an atheist and I find some of the positions of my fellow citizens threatening. But we can allow the religion to exist while banning certain acts of the adherents. If Catholics worship in America, fine. If a Catholic priest molests a child, we put him in prison. If a Muslim wants to worship in America, fine. If he commits an honor killing, put him in prison. Some say Islam directly inspires violence through the teachings of the Quran. Need I really break out all the barbarisms in the Old Testament? All major religions call for violence to some degree, and all followers act on that call to some degree.
I’d love for the world to be rid of Islam. I’d also love for it to be rid of all religion. But the problem is when I try to use the government to eliminate them, I’m not only violating the Constitution and committing an immoral act, I’m stripping myself of protections next time my group is in the minority. I believe that a religion free world could be brought about by other means than persecution.
I also see some people defending Fischer by saying, “Oh, but look at what the liberals do!” So what? There’s plenty of crazy to go around in America. If your opponents are doing extreme things, rise above it instead of turning the debate into a mudslinging battle.
March 26, 2011, 5:02 pmMichael says:
The “Islamic” world includes the United States, which has a large population of Muslims. Furthermore, your argument is entirely a straw man. No one is defending theocracy or suggesting we need theocracy except for you. Once the law is applied differently to different religions it has become theocratic. You want theocracy, I don’t, our founding fathers didn’t, and most rational people understand that those who do are either naive or evil.
March 26, 2011, 5:09 pmMichael says:
You keep saying Islam where you clearly mean Goyim. We’re not fooled.
March 26, 2011, 5:11 pmstrict says:
Bailey, you saying there is depravity in the “Islamic world” does not at all prove that Islam is not a religion.
March 26, 2011, 5:12 pmAlec Rawls says:
Muslims have the same protections for free speech and religious liberty under the Constitution as anyone else, AND they face the same limitations on these rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled that religious practice does not exempt members of any religion from an otherwise legitimate criminal law (a Peyote case I believe). Since orthodox Islam is an explicit murder cult, engaged in systematic conspiracy to commit murder against blasphemers, apostates, infidels, “dishonorable women,” etcetera, and it is actively engaged in promoting and supporting these murders. This conspiracy to commit murder should be prosecuted, and those sects that actively promote this doctrine (Sharia law) are properly criminalizable.
Of course a person can be Muslim without being orthodox. Any sect may include reformers, and there is even at least one sect, the Ahamadiyya, who reject the murderous dictates of established Sharia law, but there is nothing wrong with outlawing a criminally conspiratorial group, so long as membership is defined by support for a doctrine of criminal conspiracy. That’s what conspiracy is. Law enforcement does not have to wait until the murderous act occurs, which is impractical and immoral. Muslims are supposed to wait until the time is ripe to commit murder. They are supposed to lie in wait as a fifth column, loyal to a hostile potentate (the caliph), rising up to commit mass murder only when violent conquest comes within their reach.
We should absolutely be barring the adherents of this ideology from our shores. What we can’t do (without a constitutional amendment) is bar them from running for office, nor is there any need to. Just bar the followers of their evil religion from coming here to vote for them. That doesn’t mean barring all Muslims. Muslim escapees and reformers should certainly be welcomed. Othodox advocates of Sharia law, no.
March 26, 2011, 5:19 pmNM Kerr says:
Not in my life time or even now if you are an example since you are defending an argument that applies to Jews, Buddhists, Shikhs, Atheists and Mormons as much as it does Islam. If that is not religious bigotry what is?
March 26, 2011, 5:23 pmstrict says:
Nope, that’s not what a conspiracy is. This “it’s not a religion, it’s a criminal conspiracy” is a whole new brand of crazy. I knew this would get good.
March 26, 2011, 5:25 pmdearieme says:
Of course Islam is a religion. It’s got angels. It’s got an old fascist in the sky. What more do you want?
March 26, 2011, 5:26 pmNM Kerr says:
Not in my life time or even now, if you are an example. since you are defending an argument that applies to Jews, Buddhists, Shikhs, Atheists and Mormons as much as it does Islam. If that is not religious bigotry what is?
March 26, 2011, 5:26 pmdearieme says:
Come to think of it, I suspect that use of the expression “Judeo-Christian” is usually bogus but historically you could apply it to the origins of Islam. There’s a thought.
March 26, 2011, 5:28 pmJohn Herbison says:
Many Republicans in 2008 were quick to call upon then-Senator Obama to denounce his former pastor for his use of inflammatory rhetoric. How many of those Republicans had called upon Senator Kerry in 2004 to denounce Cardinal Law of Boston for failing to keep his priests from diddling their young parishioners?
March 26, 2011, 5:37 pmhighplains says:
Strict:
“Bailey, you saying there is depravity in the “Islamic world” does not at all prove that Islam is not a religion . . .”
Virtually every extant theocracy in the world is islamic and nearly all the active insurgencies are striving to impose islamic law and governance. In those instances, at least, islam is not simply a “religion,” but a legal system and governing ideology with a strong supremacist imperative.
Michael said:
“You think you are arguing against oppression, but you are arguing for oppression that favors you over someone else. . .”
The people I’m concerned about do not accept your Social Contract, Michael. They will not reciprocate your tolerance. They will terrorise you and wage war against you until they get their way.
March 26, 2011, 5:39 pmstrict says:
High plains: Muslim militants want to impose Islamic law, therefore Islam isn’t a religion!
Nope, that doesn’t make sense.
March 26, 2011, 5:43 pmleo marvin says:
No, that’s not how Sarcastro really feels and thinks. It’s parody. The name and picture should be your first clues.
March 26, 2011, 5:51 pmmr burns says:
The words of a healthy youngster who has never seen combat.
March 26, 2011, 6:00 pmConfused says:
So if I started a revolution, took over a small country, and imposed strict biblical law (stoning of adulterers and all) would Christianity suddenly no longer be allowed to be a religion? Where is the threshold where implementation of a religious doctrine in one country invalidates it as a religion in all countries?
March 26, 2011, 6:09 pmyankee says:
And who said anti-semitism is dead here in the U.S.? Are Jewish children never called Christ-killers by their Protestant schoolmates?
The notion that the supposed death of anti-semitism in the U.S. is something that happened ages ago is even sillier. Taking an example from the law, 40 years ago elite law firms were divided into “white-shoe” WASP law firms like Cravath and Jewish law firms like Wachtell. The only reason such a thing as a “Jewish” law firm existed at all is that the WASP firms were exceedingly unwilling to hire Jews.
March 26, 2011, 6:09 pmSean says:
Your constitutional law professors need to get out of your study and see the Religion of Submission in action, as well as read what it’s “holy” book says.
If I create a religion tomorrow that says my followers must go out and murder all lawyers if they do not give up their profession, should my new “religion” be protected?
If I set up a whole new set of civil and criminal law, and say that if you contest or criticize these rules, or their divine nature, my followers are compelled to murder you, do I still get first amendment protections?
The internet is overflowing with the truth about Sharia, Islam, and it’s aims of global domination and the requirement of Jihad of it’s followers. Though I imagine reading up on it would be too much, with your head buried so deeply in the sand.
March 26, 2011, 6:10 pmmr burns says:
If the primary stated purpose of a “religion” were to commit acts which the secular authorities deemed to be crimes wouldnt it be safer and more efficacious to ban that “religion” than to wait for its’ adherents to engage in harmful and illegal activities they extoll and urge upon all ?
March 26, 2011, 6:10 pmtioedong says:
the worry is not Islam the religion per se but if the mosques are being used as a trojan horse by a foreign power to change America.
The Catholics were accused of this at the time of the Constitution was written, and so you might want to look at how the laws defined Catholicism back then.
March 26, 2011, 6:19 pmBasil says:
The problem with Islam is that it is a political movement that also deniefes itself as a religion. If Hitler had named himself “Pope” of the Church of National Socialism, would there be a first Amendment right to practice Nazism and thereby legally place Jews in a second class status (Dhimmitude)? Is this not the issue with Scientology as well? Does the First Amendment protect anything anyone chooses to call a religion?
March 26, 2011, 6:37 pmHarry Eagar says:
Unless he made bishop.
March 26, 2011, 6:45 pmyankee says:
Actually there’s a First Amendment right to practice Nazism even without the Free Exercise Clause. See National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.
March 26, 2011, 6:51 pmDonM says:
In Islam, under Sharia, men get a vote, women get a half a vote. That is in complete accord with US practice, where men get a vote, and women get half a vote, and another half.
Muslims may abide the US Constitution.
March 26, 2011, 7:19 pmBrad Harris says:
Neo liberal PC conditioning is NO defense against the tried and tested intimidation tactics of islamism when they’ve got your naive little secular culture in their sights.
What is the attraction islamism holds for so many men indoctrinated into the cult?
The gaurantee of patriarchal dominiance supported by all levels of government with a tyrany controlling the whole oppressive backwards lot.
What a weak kneed stupid bloody mess we’ve left our children to live with.
March 26, 2011, 7:40 pmjukeboxgrad says:
TMK75:
If the shoe fits, wear it. The GOP has a long history of getting into bed with the American Taliban. There’s nothing new about Huckabee and Pawlenty kissing Fischer’s ring. Here’s a nice example of the GOP’s ties with Christian extremists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
People like Robertson and Falwell are warmly embraced by the GOP, even though they incite hatred and violence. McCain spoke at Falwell’s Liberty University in 2006:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141
Bush hired 150 of Robertson’s disciples:
http://www.slate.com/id/2163601/
The GOP is quick to condemn fundamentalism and violent extremism, but only when it comes from people they don’t like.
bailey:
In your effort to be sarcastic you are being inadvertently correct:
http://www.gallup.com/press/104206/WHO-SPEAKS-ISLAM.aspx
If you can show that this claim is wrong, please do so.
dave n:
I think that “some” includes the Texas GOP:
http://www.forward.com/articles/857/
So Fischer is not a lone wacko. He has plenty of official support at high levels in the GOP.
highplains:
I guess you mean something like this:
Pat Robertson said that. And then there’s this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have a lot in common.
I guess we need to get rid of the Christians, since they have an “ideology with a strong supremacist imperative.”
March 26, 2011, 8:02 pmW.Sulik says:
As a Christian, a follower of Jesus, I am saddened and embarrassed by my coreligionists. I apologize to all who are (rightly) offended. As an American, I am also offended. This assertion makes no sense and I am glad to see Prof. Volokh has thoroughly refuted it.
March 26, 2011, 8:04 pmhighplains says:
Jukeboxgrad said:
“The GOP has a long history of getting into bed with the American Taliban. There’s nothing new about Huckabee and Pawlenty kissing Fischer’s ring. Here’s a nice example of the GOP’s ties with Christian extremists . . .”
Bruce Bawer used to write about the “Christian Taliban” when he lived in America (e.g. “Stealing Jesus”), until he moved to Europe and met the Real Thing. The experience was apparently quite clarifying.
March 26, 2011, 8:16 pmhighplains says:
Now Mr. Bawer writes books like this:
“While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within”
“Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom”
March 26, 2011, 8:23 pmPiltdown Mann says:
Oh, really? So you think the ruling class never imported a single Muslim slave from West Africa?
Next line of defense: arguing that Muslims aren’t entitled to freedom of religion because Islam is not a religion. Don’t laugh. It’s already been tried in the Murfreesboro, TN mosque case.
March 26, 2011, 8:52 pmCan't find a good name says:
Actually, the leading Supreme Court case that I can think of on this topic struck down a city ordinance which prohibited ritual animal sacrifices (the ordinance was aimed at a Santeria church, which is basically the Cuban equivalent of voodoo). The decision, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), was unanimous against the ordinance.
I don’t know whether you are referring to something else with regard to “cruel ways” (the Hialeah ordinance just banned ritual animal killings outright, without regard to cruelty issues, and the Santeria church killed the chickens, goats, sheep, etc. by cutting the carotid artery of the animal’s neck), but based on this case, I would have to say that no, the U.S. has not banned voodoo animal sacrifices.
March 26, 2011, 9:07 pmwolfefan says:
Hi Sarcastro – this has been a tough thread for you! Usually the worst you have to deal with is Geokster, but at least he gets the joke. You are in my thoughts and prayers. :)
March 26, 2011, 9:42 pmjukeboxgrad says:
highplains:
Wow, so much nonsense and falsity packed into one sentence.
First of all, Bawer never use the term “Christian Taliban.” Why are you implying he did? Secondly, your “until” implies that Bawer withdrew his criticisms of Christianity after he started criticizing Islam. Trouble is, he didn’t. Why are you implying he did?
And yes, the American Taliban is different from that other Taliban. Trouble is, not different enough. ‘Not currently as evil and violent as the real Taliban’ is hardly a ringing endorsement. You’re making it obvious that your standards are quite low.
And he still happily promotes Stealing Jesus on his website:
http://www.brucebawer.com/my_books.htm
So he is not walking away from the ideas in that book. He is still promoting those ideas “now.” Even though you claimed otherwise by saying “until.” But I’m sure you claim he is right about Islam and wrong about Christianity. Right? How convenient for you.
March 26, 2011, 9:59 pmdht says:
Aren’t kosher butcher shops a form of religious animal sacrifice?
March 26, 2011, 10:14 pmPiltdown Mann says:
Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays
March 26, 2011, 10:41 pmhighplains says:
” . . . Feldman insisted that “a hallmark of liberal, secular societies is supposed to be respect for different cultures, including traditional, religious cultures — even intolerant ones. That’s easy to say about things happening on the other side of an ocean from your Ivy League office. I’d like to see Feldman tell this to gay people in Amsterdam, where ten years ago they felt safer than anyplace else on earth and where Muslim youths now beat them up in broad daylight in the middle of town. Or why doesn’t he try this line on Jewish children in France, who according to a French government report can no longer get an education in that country because of severe harassment (and worse) by Muslim classmates? Feldman further equated Islamic and Roman Catholic views of gays and women — as if the Church’s “rejection of homosexuality and women priests” could be compared to the execution of gays and the wholesale subordination of women to the will of men. . . . Bruce Bawer, 2008
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-times-it-ain%E2%80%99t-a-changin%E2%80%99/
March 26, 2011, 11:41 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You need to help me find the part of Bawer’s article where he says that his previous statements about Christianity are no longer operative. Because that’s what you implied when you said “until” and “now.”
I notice you also still haven’t told us if you accept Bawer’s claims about Christianity.
You also haven’t explained why ‘not as bad as the other Taliban’ is good enough for you. How did your standards get to be so low?
March 27, 2011, 12:07 amSDN says:
Since the majority of the African slave trade was and is run by Muslims (Google is your friend), and Islam forbids holding a fellow believer in slavery (a common tactic for getting out of slavery by Islamics was “taking the turban” and converting until one got out of Muslim territory), no one in the ruling class got the opportunity to import Muslim slaves.
Not even Thomas Jefferson was able to escape the necessity of fighting against Islam.
March 27, 2011, 12:16 amptt says:
Laura(southernxyl): And don’t much care to, to be honest. I don’t like listening to people I can’t talk back to, and explain how they are wrong.
Quite sensible of you. Sadly, the GOP nominees-to-be have been submitting to “interviews” by him with great glee and no discernable divergence of opinion. He’s a go-to guy, for them at least. He gets them to say the darnedest things (sort of like Art Linkletter in another context). It’s sort of fascinating, but, like you, I can’t bear to listen to it.
March 27, 2011, 12:45 amptt says:
Distance themselves? Why, they nearly snuggle when they meet (no homo, as the youngsters say). Just last Thursday and Friday, Fischer had serial love-fests with most of the GOP line-up while they all attended the hot-bed of first-amendment-exercise, Retaking America. No, wait, re-uh… re-something America. Rediscover America. That’s it.
March 27, 2011, 12:54 amRicardo says:
A little history is a dangerous thing. The East African slave trade was run by Muslims. The West African slave trade was run by Europeans and their African allies who essentially presided over slave empires. People disagree on the exact proportion but it is fairly well-documented that some American slaves were practicing Muslims while many can trace their origins to places in West Africa where Islam was a significant minority religion at the time.
March 27, 2011, 1:25 amzuch says:
… instead of consulting the Glenn Beck University Distinguished Professor of First Amendment Studies, David Barton, Rev.Ex.
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 1:49 amzuch says:
He said “don’t deserve”. Not “shouldn’t get” or “are not entitled to”. And saying that those that would take away the rights of others in a heartbeat don’t deserve such rights themselves seems within the bounds of reasonable discourse or opinion.
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 1:55 amzuch says:
Yeah … the DNC is just slave to whatever the latest fashions are, and switch from Marxism to Islam just to be trendy….
Nothing like Billy Bragg’s trenchant description of conservatives as “dedicated swallowers of fascism” (two points if you get where he cribbed that phrase from).
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 2:10 amzuch says:
Hey, I resemble that. I never make no spelling misteaks.
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 2:16 amzuch says:
This is American Family Association stuff. You know, the one founded by the aptly named Don Wildmon.
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 2:22 amzuch says:
Have you found any of those that did have a sense of humour? When? Where?
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 2:27 amzuch says:
I’ve spent time in a couple Muslim countries and didn’t have any problem. Maybe you mean specifically the MIddle East oil kingdoms that we (the Brits and other Western states) set up and have been supporting with arms and such in recent times (check out who Dubya chose to kiss and walk hand-in-hand with)…. You know, the ones that are using their state powers to kill their citizens right now. I think the distaste for dissent runs not to religion as much as it does to any authority….
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 2:45 amPieter Nosworthy says:
I absolutely concur with Mr. Volokh’s assessment. The only caveat or comment that I would add is that no religion should be afforded “special” consideration (i.e. tolerate reprisal for burning of a religious tome, condemnation of those that draw characture of a prophet, or leniency for assualt on those that apostatize or “shame”). Islam should be allowed to exist and flourish within the strict boundaries of our republican constitutional freedoms.
-Noz
March 27, 2011, 4:02 amManju says:
Mel Gibson’s girlfriends?
March 27, 2011, 4:19 amHarry Eagar says:
Not true. Even a slight acquaintance with stories of individual slaves will turn up numerous Muslims, some of high rank back in Africa. Even from West Africa.
Considering that most of West Africa is Muslim, if the prohibition had meant anything, the Slave Coast would not have produced any slaves.
March 27, 2011, 6:36 amhighplains says:
“Nicolas Sarkozy joins David Cameron and Angela Merkel view that multiculturalism has failed”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355961/Nicolas-Sarkozy-joins-David-Cameron-Angela-Merkel-view-multiculturalism-failed.html
I’m pleased to see that the leaders of the free world are starting to publically agree with us “delusional” conservatives, despite the inevitable hew and cry from fainted hearted, twee libs such as yourselves.
March 27, 2011, 10:10 amSarcastro says:
highplains is right, we should be more like Europe! Because if anyone knows about the melting pot, it’s that immigrant paradise, Europe!
I mean, I’ve heard like dozens of anecdotes that show that Muslims are all evil, which means it’s not a religion, despite all the praying. Some might say that pointing to the government of one nation and drawing conclusions about every Muslim is bigoted nonsense, but highplains knows that you are delusional – statistics and tolerance are for liberals!
March 27, 2011, 10:29 amjukeboxgrad says:
This is from the article you cited:
Thanks for being so candid about where you stand.
March 27, 2011, 10:43 amUriel says:
You’ve GOT to be kidding me!
SAMUEL ADAMS,
March 27, 2011, 10:54 amRIGHTS OF THE COLONISTS,
20 NOVEMBER, 1772
zuch says:
See link.
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 10:54 amzuch says:
Well, aside from the fact that 1772 predates the FE clause and NRT clause, you’re still missing a few steps in your devastating counterexample:
1). Steal underpants
2). ???
3). Get rich
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 11:00 amUriel says:
200 comments and NOT ONE person had read Samuel Adams’ Rights of the Colonists.
No wonder this nation is in such deep crap.
Let me guess, most of you commenters are lawyers or law students. That would explain it.
March 27, 2011, 11:02 amUriel says:
This is supposed to HURT the case made by Adams?!?
So the Founders just whipped up the Constitution on the spur of the moment, based on NOTHING? No prior understandings, no first principles, no philosophical basis? They just started writing and out it came, like monkeys at typewriters?
Oh, and the Framers of the Constitution WANTED to protect relgions that are subversive of the civil society and are directed specifically at the overthrow and replacement of government of, by, and for the people that they were in the process of creating?
Right, and free speech protects incitement to revolution and treason, too.
March 27, 2011, 11:07 amJon Rowe says:
“Right, and free speech protects incitement to revolution….”
LOL. The Founders revolted!
March 27, 2011, 11:10 amJon Rowe says:
“Oh, and the Framers of the Constitution WANTED to protect relgions [sic.] that are subversive of the civil society….”
I agree with Justice Scalia’s opinion in Smith. I am also convinced by the research of among others Philip Hamburger. V. Phillip Munoz and Marci Hamilton that the “Free Exercise” of religion as originally understood did not demand a “right” to accommodation from secular laws that burden religiously motivated practice, but that government is free to grant such accommodations as a privilege. I.e., what the FFs did to the Quakers who didn’t want to take up arms.
That entirely solves concern about Islam. Jews, Christians and Muslims who peacefully demean themselves under the secular civil law are welcomed to peacefully practice their religion. Those that don’t face the sword of the civil law.
And btw, where does Sam Adams or John Locke for that matter single out Muslims as having their right to religious conscience not protected under “First Principles”?
March 27, 2011, 11:17 amUriel says:
Wow! Just, Wow!
March 27, 2011, 11:20 amUriel says:
You should quit while you’re behind.
March 27, 2011, 11:22 amUriel says:
Ignorant on BOTH relevant subjects: 1) The common sense limitations of both Freedom of Religion AND Freedom of Speech; and 2) ISLAM.
Impressive, green one.
March 27, 2011, 11:25 amJon Rowe says:
Sorry dude but you don’t get to make that judgment on Islam in a legal, constitutional sense. And neither did the Framers. Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson and others that they thoughts Islam was a “religion” protected by the rights of conscience. What evidence do YOU have of Founding Fathers EXCLUDING Islam from rights of conscience or First Amendment protection. So far, you’ve offered none.
March 27, 2011, 11:32 amHassell says:
We have a byzantine labyrinth of laws abridging the right to free speech in spite of the clear prohibition against this found in the First Amendment.
So I have to ask, can a “Mahometan” scream “Jihad!” in a crowded theater?
March 27, 2011, 11:34 amhighplains says:
The strawmen are so plentiful in here I could jump off the top of the hayloft and bounce!
March 27, 2011, 11:38 amRicardo says:
No, unlike you, they read John Locke and were convinced that freedom of religion applies to all religions of any significance at the time. The only belief system that John Locke singled out as undeserving of legal protection was atheism, not Islam. Undoubtedly, Jefferson and Franklin would have wanted protection for atheism as well.
Name one sect of Christianity that was not subversive toward at least one civil authority in Europe in the 17th century when Locke was writing.
March 27, 2011, 11:50 amjukeboxgrad says:
uriel:
Funny that you should stop there. Why not include the next sentence?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions15.html
So I guess we need to start by getting rid of everyone found to be “recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner.” We also need to get rid of this group, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
March 27, 2011, 11:54 amCan't find a good name says:
Not according to the Hialeah ordinance. The ordinance defined “sacrifice” as “to unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption.” (Emphasis added.)
March 27, 2011, 11:54 amBrad Harris says:
Well, I guess this discussion clears up every secularits fears about islamism.
Clearly there wouldn’t be one oppressive misogynist backward Islamic state anywhere in this world if the “American Constitution” had every ones back.
Protecting the individual or majorities freedom of dogma and political affiliation no matter how intimidating ones dogma or political affiliation may be structured towards those of differing viewpoints.
Allahar Akbar!
March 27, 2011, 11:55 amAllahar Akbar!
bradyb23 says:
What difference does any of this make, Ken? Fischer’s opponents didn’t utter this embarrassing and flat-out wrong analysis of the First Amendment.
March 27, 2011, 12:07 pmFisher did.
And Eugene’s original post in no way suggested that Fisher’s other ramblings may evidence his idiocy.
You did.
larryo says:
Michael says:
Neo-Conservative Christianity is a political philosophy, not a religion, can we throw them out too?
Yes, please – can I help?
March 27, 2011, 12:51 pmbailey says:
Neo-conservative Christianity? Not quite sure what that means but hits all the liberal buzz phrases. Couldn’t you find a way to fit the Koch Bros in as well?
March 27, 2011, 1:11 pmlarryo says:
Alec Rawls says:
there is nothing wrong with outlawing a criminally conspiratorial group, so long as membership is defined by support for a doctrine of criminal conspiracy. That’s what conspiracy is.
No, that is not what a conspiracy is. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a specific criminal act (or a series of specific criminal acts) or an agreement to accomplish a legal goal using specific criminal means.
What you are talking about is thoughtcrime, another matter entirely.
March 27, 2011, 1:13 pmStrict says:
Regarding African-American slaves, I’ve pointed out before that something like 20 percent of the imported Africans were Muslims. One man named Oman Ibn Said (spelled in various ways but there’s a good wiki article on him) wrote an autobiography in Arabic script.
So yes, the ruling American class did import Muslims. But now if Muslims want to come to American on their own volition? Horrible!
March 27, 2011, 1:15 pmArthur Kirkland says:
“My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale.” Always a winning thread.
Religious zealots of every stripe are a scourge. Like bigots. Plenty of overlap.
March 27, 2011, 1:19 pmStrict says:
LarryO,
Don’t bother. Alec Rawls is a bit of a crazy man. You can read his insane ramblings on his website, including “Vegetarianism is genocide” and “Saving Democracy from Gay Marriage.”. Or why racial profiling is good. Or why you should give him money on PayPal, or vote for him for sheriff, lol
March 27, 2011, 1:28 pmSarcastro says:
So we need to kill freedom in order to save it. Quickly now!
I also like Uriel‘s style of argument. Say “no one has sited this!” And then when anyone attempts to address you, just yell at them for being ignorant till they ignore you and leave victorious, for certain limited definitions of victory.
I know I’m frantic with fear about America – the Jihadis are like this close to destroying our fragile Republic! Until we outlaw people advocating against my values, my values will never be safe!
Start with the Muslims, finish with the traitorous Commie/Demonrats/wrong-thinkers, and then America will at last be safe.
March 27, 2011, 1:36 pmhighplains says:
Wow, how timely. This one’s for you, Jukeboxgrad:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/london-pride-not/2/
Larryo:
Might not be a conspiracy according to the legal definition, but it’s d*mn close:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/homeland_security_implications_1.html
See also, “Cartoon Jihad” from The Weekly Standard.
March 27, 2011, 1:47 pmStrict says:
Nope. It’s not even close to the legal definition, much less “damn close.”
March 27, 2011, 1:54 pmlarryo says:
Strict – yes, I see what you mean. Thanks.
March 27, 2011, 1:55 pmjukeboxgrad says:
highplains:
You already posted one Brawer article that doesn’t say what you needed it to say. Why bother posting another one?
When you repeatedly dodge fair questions you’re just making it obvious that you don’t expect to be taken seriously. Those questions are here:
http://volokh.com/2011/03/25/islam-and-the-first-amendment/#comment-1162563
March 27, 2011, 2:14 pmJT says:
You forgot Richard Henry Lee’s “true freedom embraces the Mahometan and the Gentoo (Hindu),” and the John Tyler quote already mentioned. Furthermore, the very quote that Fischer uses to justify his opinion (objectively false statement might be more appropriate than opinion) does not support the conclusion he made. Justice Story was in fact writing about the practical necessity of the First Amendment (and more the establishment clause than the free exercise clause). He was not, by any means, speaking of the morality or application of it. Story would have undoubtedly agreed that Muslims have the same first amendment rights as Christians. It should also be noted that Fischer says that other religions have privileges, but not rights, which are only for Christians. If that is the case, then Christians only have privileges as well, as when the right to believe is restricted to a certain set of beliefs, it ceases to be a right or liberty for anyone
March 27, 2011, 2:24 pmUriel says:
Law students. Is there anything they don’t know?
@jukeboxgrad says:
Why not copy & paste the entire thing? Why stop at the sentence YOU cited? What Adams said about Catholics may well have been true at the time. Never heard of the 30 yrs war (among others)? Certainly many Americans believed so even to the point of never electing a Catholic President until 1960 — when the same concerns were raised again. I didn’t include that sentence because the specific religion at issue in this thread is Islam, not Catholicism.
It was also nice to throw in some random wikipedia entry based on your flawed understanding of what Adams said, and to attempt to make it look like a continuation of Adams, rather than clarifying what you were citing and why.
March 27, 2011, 2:44 pmUriel says:
Strict says:
Right, and outside the legal definition, conspiracies not only do not exist, anyone using the word “conspiracy” must use the full legal definition in every circumstance.
Uh huh. And “Murder” is a legal term.
March 27, 2011, 2:48 pmBrad Harris says:
Sarcastro
Call me naive … but not so sure were dealing with an individuals freedom of religion here when you have the leading Islamic states of the world advocating through Sharia law” based constitutions ,
threat of death for apostates of Islam.
And perish the un-PC thought the wests historicly oppressed dark skinned peoples of african blood would ever consider surrendering to Islam on mass as some kind of political power grab.
If Chancelor Merkel and Prime M Cameron think they have enough political support to declare Europes multi culti experiment a complete failure with both pointing the finger squarely at Islamism one has to conclude the PC experiment will have to be scrapped too.
March 27, 2011, 2:50 pmSarcastro says:
Well, if 1960s Americans believe it, it must have merit! Could Islam be the new Catholicism?
Also I agree that JBG somehow deceived by daring to cite two different sources (with links, natch). Two sources is too many – I could mix them up, making her a liar!
March 27, 2011, 2:55 pmhighplains says:
Jukeboxgrad said:
“You need to help me find the part of Bawer’s article where he says that his previous statements about Christianity are no longer operative. Because that’s what you implied when you said “until” and “now.”
[Not "inoperative," just receding in relative significance.]
“I notice you also still haven’t told us if you accept Bawer’s claims about Christianity.”
[I, like Bawer, believe any threat posed by a political version of christianity, which is focused primarily on opposing abortion and gay marriage, is far less problematic in every real sense than the threat of "political islam" - if you believe in such an animal.]
“You also haven’t explained why ‘not as bad as the other Taliban’ is good enough for you. How did your standards get to be so low.”
[Do you really believe that opposing gay marriage and abortion is so beyond the pale that it can be classed as simply "less bad than the Taliban?" To me that's a bizarre, nonsensical statement.]
March 27, 2011, 2:55 pmUriel says:
I see, so if someone presents an argument that singles out ONE thing within a category as an example; then they are therefore RULING OUT application of that argument to ALL other things within that category. Interesting theory. As for reading Locke, I have. What you’re suggesting is either that Adams never read Locke, or that your phenomenal understanding of Locke is superior to that of Adams — NOT me.
Oh, and the Framers of the Constitution WANTED to protect relgions that are subversive of the civil society and are directed specifically at the overthrow and replacement of government of, by, and for the people that they were in the process of creating?
No, I won’t. Because the question is irrelevant.
March 27, 2011, 2:55 pmhighplains says:
Jukeboxgrad:
FYI, the new article is very good. you should read it.
March 27, 2011, 3:00 pmUriel says:
Jon Rowe says:
What would a “legal sense” be prior to the Constitution? Do you mean in the Colonies? Which colony? Do you mean in Pre-Colonial English Common Law? Are you an expert in Pre-Colonial English Common Law? I’m not.
Further, I’ll make whatever judgments, about whatever subject, that I see fit. If you mean that I’m not on the SCOTUS and so my judgments are not legally binding; then I must ask when YOU were appointed (elected) to the judiciary, in what capacity, and in what jurisdiction? Are YOU on the SCOTUS?
Are all SCOTUS decisions final? Are they all correct? Constitutional? Moral? Fair?
But, we HAD been discussing matters as they were AS OF the Founding — and NOT subsequent judge-made laws.
As for whether I can make the judgment about whether Islam is subversive of THIS PARTICULAR civil society — I honestly didn’t imagine I would need to make that case. I assumed (poorly) that any semi-intelligent, marginally-educated person would find that to be — in the words of America’s Founders — SELF EVIDENT.
I should have known better, I suppose; but I didn’t anticipate arguing with the most confused, most dys-educated group in America … 1Ls.
March 27, 2011, 3:10 pmhighplains says:
jukeboxgrad:
My earlier comment linked to the 2nd page rather than the 1st. Here it is again, so you don’t have to rummage around for it:)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/london-pride-not/
March 27, 2011, 3:10 pmUriel says:
Jon Rowe says:
AND,
don’t call me “dude”, numbcunt.
March 27, 2011, 3:11 pmPieter Nosworthy says:
You folks are obviously much smarter than I. One thought, though, what is the implication of our secular courts enforcing shariah law on a litigant? Or an expectation of a member of a community that feels one does not apply (statute) and the other should be used (religious)? Of course I am referencing what occured in FL recently.
March 27, 2011, 3:16 pmJon Rowe says:
Uriel,
I think you have some anger issues to deal with.
March 27, 2011, 3:29 pmgwinje says:
Dude, chill out, dude.
March 27, 2011, 3:42 pmJon Rowe says:
Well you should try to sell your position to the Founders, the ones who articulated the idea of “self evident truths,” because apparently they were more confused than ILs (of which I have not been one for over 14 years!).
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
“Every religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas. In the first they all agree. All forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness &ca. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, and happiness in society. In their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing the same. These respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, and unimportant to the legitimate objects of society. Yet these are the questions on which have hung the bitter schisms of Nazarenes, Socinians, Arians, Athanasians in former times, and now of Trinitarians, Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers &c. Among the Mahometans we are told that thousands fell victims to the dispute whether the first or second toe of Mahomet was longest; and what blood, how many human lives have the words ‘this do in remembrance of me’ cost the Christian world! We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus; but we schismatize and lose ourselves in subtleties about his nature, his conception maculate or immaculate, whether he was a god or not a god, whether his votaries are to be initiated by simple aspersion, by immersion, or without water; whether his priests must be robed in white, in black, or not robed at all; whether we are to use our own reason, or the reason of others, in the opinions we form, or as to the evidence we are to believe. It is on questions of this, and still less importance, that such oceans of human blood have been spilt, and whole regions of the earth have been desolated by wars and persecutions, in which human ingenuity has been exhausted in inventing new tortures for their brethren. It is time then to become sensible how insoluble these questions are by minds like ours, how unimportant, and how mischievous; and to consign them to the sleep of death, never to be awakened from it. … We see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which we schismatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions. [My emphasis.]”
– Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
“Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”
– Ben Franklin, Autobiography.
March 27, 2011, 3:43 pmJon Rowe says:
One more. Here is George Washington the Father of America, putting Jews and Muslims in the same box in the context of defending the idea of a gentle Christian state establishment with rights of conscience for Jews and Muslims.
“…[Y]et I must confess, that I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief.”
– To George Mason, October 3, 1785.
March 27, 2011, 3:54 pmJon Rowe says:
I haven’t looked into this issue in detail but it seems to me that provided the Sharia conforms with American Civil Law there is no problem with contracts to enforce Sharia Law. So if someone wants to contract to NOT eat pork or take out interest bearing loans or give interest bearing loans, so be it. Obviously the Sharia horror stories would not be permitted. I also don’t think, given our recognized system of religious liberty, one can make a contract to NOT convert away from Islam. A contract to “raise” a child in Islam? The answer should be no different than a contract to raise a child in ANY particular faith.
March 27, 2011, 4:09 pmjukeboxgrad says:
uriel:
Adams said this:
That wasn’t just “true at the time.” It’s true now. Roman Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
That counts as “absolute.”
You didn’t include that sentence because the authority you cited was inconveniently making a statement about Catholicism, not Islam.
Only someone with exceptionally poor reading comprehension could possibly think that Adams said “we must win the world with the power of the Gospel … Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ” shortly after warning us about how religion must not be allowed to subvert civil government.
But if you are now finally starting to comprehend that those words were said by someone other than Adams, then you should explain why they are not an example of what he warned us about.
I provided a link. Did you follow it? If you did, and you still can’t understand what I was citing and why, then there’s no hope that I could make it simple enough for you to understand.
You’re not just inventing a definition that’s contrary to the “full legal definition.” You’re inventing a definition that’s contrary to what’s in an ordinary dictionary.
When you invent your own meanings for words that’s a good way to announce that you don’t expect to be taken seriously.
highplains:
That answers some question other than the question I actually asked. I asked you if you accept Bawer’s claims abotu Christianity. Like the claims he made in Stealing Jesus. You still haven’t answered that question.
It is indeed “so beyond the pale” when it involves the methods adopted by, say, Scott Roeder and Eric Rudolph. And the problem with people like Roeder and Rudolph is that they get plenty of support from a large community. I demonstrate this in detail here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1253236970.shtml#650342
The fundamentalists who live down the street and vote in American elections are more of a threat to my freedom than the ones hiding in a cave on the other side of the planet. Especially when I take into account this:
http://www.gallup.com/press/104206/WHO-SPEAKS-ISLAM.aspx
Which I cited above, and which no one has addressed.
Thanks for the extra effort, but I read the whole thing the first time you posted it. I don’t know why you think it’s so important.
Bawer fails to grasp an important piece of the picture. A lot of the people speaking up about various problems with Islam are simply bigots, and they make it obvious. This has a consequence: non-bigots who have an impulse to speak up about problems with Islam decide to shut up, because they believe it’s important not to line up next to bigots.
This dynamic has a lot to do with the events Bawer describes, but he fails to see this.
March 27, 2011, 4:15 pm1040 says:
Uriel is, of course, right. Revolution is protected only when it is to defend the highest marginal tax rate from being raised by a black secret muslin.
March 27, 2011, 4:33 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Indeed. And then it’s time for “second amendment remedies.” Uriel has a problem with “incitement to revolution” except when his pals are doing it.
March 27, 2011, 4:36 pmHarry Eagar says:
I hate to do it, jbg, but Roman Catholics were not taught that the pope was infallible in Adams’s time. That was an innovation of the 1860s, and Acton was silenced for publishing a magazine proving that it had never been doctrine.
You are on the side of the angels otherwise.
Besides, even people who believe the pope infallible specify only in matters of faith and doctrine, and then only in formal (ex cathedra) expositions. Catholics do not believe popes are infallible politically.
March 27, 2011, 4:54 pmlarryo says:
highplains: Might not be a conspiracy according to the legal definition, but it’s d*mn close.
No, you missed the “illegal” part, as did the author of that nitwit article from the wingnut thinktank you linked. See, what you (and they) do not understand is that a conspiracy’s means or its goal must involve some preordained crime – like robbery! It’s not sufficient if they are thinking about things you don’t like.
And in this country, if you and your friends want to sit around and talk about how to peacefully subvert the government by persuading the majority of people to abandon the common law and the Constitution in favor of Sharia law, or even if you want to organize and solicit contributions to do so, it is perfectly legal. Not only that, enacting statutes prohibiting those activities is not constitutionally permissible.
That’s what the founders meant by “small government.”
Love it or leave it!
March 27, 2011, 7:06 pmlarryo says:
Uriel says: Right, and outside the legal definition, conspiracies not only do not exist, anyone using the word “conspiracy” must use the full legal definition in every circumstance.
Uh huh. And “Murder” is a legal term.
Well, conspiracy is a legal term, after all. And no one expects “anyone” using the word to know the precise legal definition, but using the word “conspiracy” to describe something like a chess club is not only misleading, it may be defamatory.
And, by the way, “murder” is a legal term. Maybe you have heard of “aggravated murder” or “felony murder.” “Murder” is a form of “homicide,” which is also a legal term, and may be committed recklessly or with criminal negligence – but then it’s not “murder.”
You should get out more.
March 27, 2011, 7:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Fair enough, I didn’t know. Thanks for pointing that out.
March 27, 2011, 7:17 pmOwen H. says:
Demonizing and blaming all adherents of a religion for the actions of a few, blaming them for how bad things are, and declaring they should have no rights. Sounds familiar.
What’s the Arabic for Night of Broken Glass?
March 27, 2011, 8:01 pmzuch says:
Oh, I thought you had insinuated he had something to say about the FE and NRT clauses. Of course, the Constitution is just what we had in mind in 1772, as the Articles of Confederation show through their near identity with the subsequent Congress, so I’m quite sure that the ideas of pre-revolutionary 1772 were indeed even closer in intent to the eventual Constitution … which we came up with … for some strange reason.
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 9:14 pmzuch says:
Once again:
1). Steal underpants
2). ???
3). Get rich
What do you think your ‘argument’ against Islam might be missing?
I do remember, however, charges that Catholics were “Papists” … echoes that persisted even through the 1060 election (but fortunatelty didn’t win the day).
Cheers,
March 27, 2011, 9:17 pmManju says:
See link.
Cheers,
Well, the person who best fits both descriptions, swallower and follower, does not strike me as particularly conservative. At least not socially so.
Could be a libertarian though. After all, liberals keep telling us that we are just conservatives in drag.
March 27, 2011, 10:00 pmUriel says:
zuch says:
Since you won’t get to your point … let me:
If that’s what you contend, …SAY IT! Smarmy, passive-aggressive BS is no substitute for argumentation.
My intial posting raises ONLY TWO relevant questions:
1) Did “anyone during the framing era” agree with what Adams wrote in Rights of the Colonists regarding the Freedom of Religion — which was not invented by The U.S. Constitution, by the way; and,
2) Did (would) any Framer who agreed with Adams consider Islam to be subversive of American civil society?
That’s all.
To suggest that NOBODY agreed with Adams during the (undefined) “Framing Era” is patently absurd.
To suggest that one or more of the actual attendees of the Constitutional Convention may have understood Freedom of Religion the way that Adams understood it, but, nevertheless, did not intend for that understaning to be enshrined in the Constitution is equally absurd.
To argue that because no “source” from (when, exactly?) 1776 to 1789 stated explicitly that the First Amendment was not to apply to religions subversive of the U.S. Government or the American civil society, then the First Amendment MUST be interpreted to protect religions subversive of government and the civil society is the kind of sophistry usually reserved for SCOTUS members intent upon warping the language and intent of the Constitution and undoing the American way of life.
If you want to believe it, feel free. But it may have consequences in the near future that YOU will not like … INFIDEL!
Cheers ;)
March 27, 2011, 10:05 pmSarcastro says:
Uriel – meets Jon Rowe‘s legion of quotes with the same dubiously probative quote he had before, and then calls liberal SCOTUS justices traitors.
Whatta champion!
March 27, 2011, 10:08 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Sharron Angle’s suggestion about “second amendment remedies” was “subversive of government and the civil society.” Do you believe her statement was not protected by 1A? Or do you believe that 1A protects statements “subversive of government” only if they are not based on religion?
As far as I know, 1A still says this:
Did you hear that “freedom of speech” was changed to “freedom of speech unless that speech is subversive of government?” That news hasn’t reached my neck of the woods yet, so it would be great if you could fill me in.
By the way, I might decide to wake up tomorrow and declare that our system of government sucks, and I intend to start a movement to replace it with an entirely different system of government. That is, I intend to be “subversive of government.” Are you claiming that the government is empowered by the constitution to punish me for making that statement? Are you claiming that I’m not free to make that statement?
Do you think of yourself as a conservative? Just curious.
March 27, 2011, 10:22 pmUriel says:
You shouldn’t believe everything your crim law prof says.
And YOU should get out more. Perhaps try to learn something from someone who doesn’t “think like a lawyer”.
neither 1b, nor 2 are legal definitions. How do you account for that?
If someone tells you that “murder” is a “legal term” without allowing that there are non-legal definitions of that word, thus suggesting that the use of the word is ALWAYS meant in a legal context and is innappropriate in any other context, … are they lying, or just wrong?
March 27, 2011, 10:35 pmRicardo says:
So does this mean that David Cameron will grant Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland independence in short order? Or is “multiculturalism” a term that only applies to dark-skinned people?
March 27, 2011, 10:35 pmUriel says:
In other words, the word “murder” is not a legal term simply because one meaning of it is used by the law, any more than the word “the” is a “legal term” because it also is used in law.
But a fool abhorreth instruction.
March 27, 2011, 10:38 pmUriel says:
Sorry. Too much to respond to. No more time to waste trying to enlighten the willfully ignorant. It’s been fun.
Cheers ;)
March 27, 2011, 10:42 pmRicardo says:
Catch you later, dude.
March 27, 2011, 10:55 pmhappyjim says:
Akbar Ahmed, the chair of Islamic studies at American University, has advised many government officials, including General Petraeus, Richard Holbrooke, and George W. Bush. He speaks regularly on BBC and CNN, and has appeared on many U.S. shows, including Oprah and Nightline.
To oppose the “burn the Quran” event planned by Pastor Terry Jones, Ahmed wrote an editorial for CNN in which he stated:
Not only are the actions of Jones contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are also against the ideals of the American Founding Fathers.
…
The Founding Fathers read and honored the same Quran that Jones is now seeking to burn.
…
[John Adams, America’s second president] showed the utmost respect for Islam, naming the Prophet Mohammed as one of the greatest truth seekers in history.
These statements are utterly opposed by the facts.
John Adams said absolutely nothing of the kind. Correspondence from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is “a military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”
John Adams did indeed own a Quran — the copy he owned contained the following in the preface:
This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible …
Perhaps Akbar Ahmed misspoke, and was referring to John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams? The sixth president, not the second?
No. Here is what John Quincy Adams wrote about the Islamic prophet Mohammed:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. [emphasis in the original]
John Quincy Adams also described the Quran in one of his essays as follows:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Ahmed also claims in his editorial that “Benjamin Franklin called the Prophet Mohammed a model of compassion.” Ahmed made similar claims on The Daily Show:
I quote the Founding Fathers. … John Adams on the Prophet of Islam: He called him one of the greatest truth seekers in history. (Ben) Franklin called him a model of compassion. And Jefferson had the first Iftaar … and owned a copy of the Quran. … Those Americans who are attacking Islam simply as a terrorist religion or a religion of evil, really need to go back to their own Founding Fathers.
In a March 23, 1790, letter to the editor of the Federal Gazette, Ben Franklin wrote:
Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.
Thomas Jefferson? Like John Adams, he did own a Quran, one translated by George Sale. Here are some of Sale’s comments on the Quran, included by Sale in his introduction:
It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword.
In his editorial, Akbar Ahmed claims:
Thomas Jefferson kept the … Quran in his personal collection and it informed his decision to host the first presidential iftaar during Ramadan.
President Obama repeated this claim — that Jefferson hosted the first presidential iftaar — at the most recent White House Ramadan dinner.
Let’s review the facts.
During the Barbary Wars, in 1805, the bey (i.e., monarch) of Tunis threatened war with the United States after the U.S. had been successful in capturing some Tunisian pirate ships. The bey sent an envoy to the United States to negotiate for the return of the ships. This envoy stayed in Washington for six months, during which the month of Ramadan passed.
One of Thomas Jefferson’s many invitations extended to this envoy to meet with him at the White House was during the month of Ramadan. To accommodate the envoy’s religious obligation, Jefferson changed the time of dinner from the usual “half after three” to “precisely at sunset.”
Jefferson was being polite — not celebrating the first White House iftaar, as Akbar Ahmed suggests.
The first Ramadan iftaar was not actually held at the White House until 1996.
Indeed, in a letter dated June 26, 1822, Jefferson had this to say about Islam in a passage regarding Calvinism:
Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.
For good measure, Akbar Ahmed also mentioned John Locke:
The Founding Fathers were also inspired by Christian thinkers like John Locke, who declared that the true Christian’s duty was to “practice charity, meekness, and good-will in general toward all mankind, even to those that are not Christians.”
Akbar Ahmed is currently Ibn Khaldoun chair and professor of Islamic studies at American University. Ibn Khaldoun was a 14th century Islamic philosopher and scholar, a man about whom Akbar Ahmed has written. Ibn Khaldoun advocated for violence against non-Muslims as a religious duty, in order to achieve the larger goal of dismantling non-Muslim civilization and imposing an Islamic caliphate.
Ibn Khaldoun makes it clear that holy war is the duty of every Muslim. From his most famous work, Muqaddimah:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.
March 27, 2011, 11:11 pmjukeboxgrad says:
uriel:
Do you have amnesia? For some strange reason you seem to have already forgotten how the word “conspiracy” was introduced into this thread. We are discussing the meaning of that word because one of your ideological pals said this:
(Emphasis added.)
It was then pointed out that the person writing those words did not understand the legal meaning of the word “conspiracy.” You then chimed in with this brilliant remark:
Indeed, “anyone using the word ‘conspiracy’ ” for the purpose of making claims about what “should be prosecuted” and what should be considered “properly criminalizable” should indeed be using the word according to its “legal definition.” Because otherwise they are doing this: inventing their own laws. Yes,”there are non-legal definitions of that word.” But here’s what they are, in this context: irrelevant.
You have excellent timing. Next time do yourself a favor and leave before, not after, you make a complete fool of yourself.
Here’s someone I know for sure ” abhorreth instruction:” some dude on the internet named uriel.
March 27, 2011, 11:46 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
This would be, I suppose, in contrast to 14th Century Christianity, whose generosity towards Jews and Muslims was incomparable. But only a warm-up for the goodheartedness and amity they displayed amongst each other during the Reformation and Inquisition!
Needless to say, the First Amendment applies to Islam no matter whether it calls for the conversion of the rest of the world. What’s more remarkable is the blindness that prevents seeing that Islam shares this with many other religions. Such are the blinkers of the One True Faith.
March 28, 2011, 12:26 amjukeboxgrad says:
happyjim:
Do you realize that when you do a wholesale cut and paste of someone else’s work you’re supposed to indicate that it’s someone else’s work? I guess not.
Aside from the name you put at the top of it, your post contains no original content whatsoever. Your post is a copy of an article that originated here, by Laura Rubenfeld:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/no-professor-ahmed-the-founders-were-not-so-fond-of-islam/
In your copy, the links are omitted, and the formatting is scrambled, and (oddly) the last sentence is omitted. Other than that, it’s a perfect copy.
A response to Rubenfeld’s article is here:
http://journeyintoamerica.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/laura-rubenfelds-article-a-response/
Rubenfeld’s article is junk. Let’s look at one example that is mentioned in that response. Rubenfeld said this:
Rubenfeld is pretending that Franklin is expressing his opinion about what is written “in that sacred Book.” Trouble is, he’s not. He’s writing satire, pretending to quote a speech given by a fictional Muslim slave trader. He is doing this to mock a speech given by someone who gave a similar speech defending slavery. See here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=DDk7MKMkIdwC&pg=PA86&dq=the+writings+of+benjamin+franklin+slave+trade&hl=en&ei=CVzETLTDGMP68AaR_J2ZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
A version that’s easier to read is here:
http://sniggle.net/historicus.php
See also here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2y4ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA613&dq=%22The+speech+was+a+capital+parody%22&hl=en&ei=PQmQTYSLMYq5twfzla2ICQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20speech%20was%20a%20capital%20parody%22&f=false
Another response to Rubenfeld is here:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/10/exposing_the_infrastructure_of_anti-muslim_hate_1.html
That article explains the Franklin issue as follows:
(Emphasis added.) The rest of Rubenfeld’s article is similarly shabby. Rubenfeld has no credibility, and neither do you. Thanks for providing such a nice demonstration of how the people promoting this nonsense are not just bigoted but also dishonest.
March 28, 2011, 12:34 amjukeboxgrad says:
Oops, minor correction. I said this:
I should have said this:
Here are those sentences:
March 28, 2011, 12:53 amRicardo says:
This passage also doesn’t make any sense. What Muslims call “iftaar” is simply the act of sitting down for a meal following sunset during Ramadan. It is not a formal religious ceremony so the professor is technically correct that Jefferson’s dinner was iftaar. At my job in college, my Muslim co-workers used to take iftaar by walking across the street to Wendy’s during break-time in the evening.
March 28, 2011, 1:54 amhighplains says:
Jukeboxgrad:
“A lot of the people speaking up about various problems with Islam are simply bigots, and they make it obvious. This has a consequence: non-bigots who have an impulse to speak up about problems with Islam decide to shut up, because they believe it’s important not to line up next to bigots.”
Ahhh, the taint of being associated with Those People. Well, we wouldn’t want to to tarnish anyone’s liberal halo now, would we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ztRcz4v28&feature=related
Ever heard of an oikophobe?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704147804575455523068802824.html
March 28, 2011, 9:53 ambumperpflug says:
If the framers intended religious freedom to only extend to Christianity, I think it would be the duty of all right-headed individuals to disregard them. They did not, of course, but why are outbursts like these surprising when we have long since elevated them to demigod status?
March 28, 2011, 12:05 pmVlad Konings says:
I’ve never heard of Bryan Fischer, in spite of being a knuckle-dragging theoconservative.
It seems to me you’ve dug deep to find a really wacky, fringe position, as a foil from which to preach to the choir.
March 28, 2011, 12:46 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Then how did you miss him? Fischer and his American Family Association are big, very big, players in the religious conservative movement. Look how many GOP hopefuls are appearing with him, and agreeing with his positions, too.
March 28, 2011, 1:56 pmVolokh Conspiracy on Bryan Fischer’s views of the First Amendment — Warren Throckmorton says:
[...] Friday, Eugene Volokh analyzed Bryan Fischer’s claims about the First Amendment and found them wanting. You’ll remember Mr. Fischer, I’m [...]
March 28, 2011, 2:21 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
So, highplains, I clicked to your article. And the headline is “Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.”
I get the pun. I also get the fact that you, Taranto, and Krauthammer haven’t yet figured out the liberals are Americans, and a lot of Americans are liberals. (Yeah, you got the 2010 election, but 2006 and 08?!)
I know, you think we’re mind-melders who got our Kenyan constitutionally-ineligible social fascist elected President through some misalignment of planets. And that belief just couldn’t be bigotry; bigotry disappeared in America in 1968 when all those bigots got washed in the blood of the
lambelephant. I mean, I’m sure that if Hillary Clinton had won, we’d have at least two GOP candidates suggesting she was a fraud born in Kenya. And no doubt there would have been bone-in-nose and watermelon-chomping cartoons of Jonathan Edwards, as there are with Obama.Everyone knows who the Real Americans are, as Sarah Palin says. White, rural, Christian, uneducated and proud of it. Basically, privates in the Confederate Army. The rest of us are some sort of ephemera.
Jukeboxgrad has a point you should pay more careful attention to. Liberals aren’t going to accept Islamic honor killings. Can you say that about Dinesh D’Souza and the other conservatives who agree with radical Islam about the depravity of America, just disagree about which religion is needed to save us? But when your ilk is dreaming that Islam isn’t a religion for judicial purposes (is the plan, we can tax mosques but not churches!?), we’re going to shelve the honor killing issue to stop you clowns from perverting America for everyone.
March 28, 2011, 2:48 pmManju says:
I see that as this:
Conservatives aren’t going to accept Communism. Can you say that about Michael Moore and the other liberals who agree with Communists about the depravity of America, just disagree about which version of communism is needed to save us?
March 28, 2011, 4:19 pmyankev says:
Or greeted with muttered Yitbach al yahud by students at Wayne State University, or by laments at various U of California campuses that Hitler yemach shmo did not finish the job?
March 28, 2011, 5:16 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Then you aren’t reasoning very clearly, because your sentence starts off with the generalization (‘Communism’), while mine starts off with a specific example of common belief. As background knowledge, both radical Islam and the Religious Right are very bothered by American sexual mores, although in fairness to D’Souza, I don’t think he calls for honor killings. (At least, couldn’t the evil liberals have the decency of Newt Gingrich, to praise Jeebus and proclaim love of Victorian sexuality between infidelities?)
March 28, 2011, 7:32 pmzuch says:
As to the first, WTF cares? There’s people that agree with Glenn Beck too, I’m sure, but so what? But if that was your point, you chose a poor way of saying it.
As to the second, your Adams quote sheds no light on that at all, which is why I repeatedly asked for more information there by means of likening your thought processes to that of some exemplary school students.
Cheers,
March 28, 2011, 7:39 pmzuch says:
Must be a student of David Barton. The methodology seems identical.
Cheers,
March 28, 2011, 7:50 pmzuch says:
How about Don Wildmon and the American Family Association?
Cheers,
March 28, 2011, 7:52 pmManju says:
This reminds me of the old anti-anti-communism. Some were so outraged by McCarthyism that they avoided taking on communism, out of fear of enabling the former or appearing to be aligned with them.
Nathaniel Brandon once wrote about trying to convince Ayn Rand to write about Jim Crow. She was reluctant because she didn’t want to enable the communists, or even give the appearance of associating with them. She eventually came around.
Communists believed that private property and the inevitable economic inequality that ensues was at the root slavery and Jim Crow. Liberalism was inherently racist was the theory in its most doctrinaire form.
Ike interestingly used this to position Jim Crow as national security issue, effectively flipping the communist position. Now you couldn’t be an American (or a Liberal, in its broadest ideological sense) without being opposed to Jim Crow.
Kennedy was more like Rand was initially. He wanted the March on Washington cancelled in part because his anti-communism demanded America not be embarrassed in front of the world. In effect, he wanted the Civil Rights Movement to “shut up, because…it’s important not to line up next to” communists.
I think Ike got it right in this instance. Instead of fear of X resulting in silence over Y, position the opposition to X as necessary in defeating Y. People are always going to use the guilt-by-association argument on you. But since every movement has some evil in it, the anti-anti’s end up paralyzed.
March 28, 2011, 8:12 pmManju says:
Well since communism, like honor killings, is generally considered evil, I went with it. After all, liberals don’t actually say they support communism any more than conservatives say they support honor killings. Its just their opposition thinks they really do.
Plus your argument would’ve been stronger if you just said “theology” not “honor killigs” since support from conservatives for the latter is more far-fetched than the former. So I addressed an even stronger construction of your argument.
The point is, conservatizes support a system that is closer to the theology underlying honor killings than do liberals. Likewise, liberals support policies closer to communism than do conservatives. Their opponents use these similarities to bait them.
March 28, 2011, 8:25 pmzuch says:
What’s wrong with communism?
Cheers,
March 28, 2011, 8:37 pmNM Kerr says:
We didn’t have to dig very far since Pawlenty, Huckabee and other prominent republicanshave all masde nnewsworthannouncement on his show
March 28, 2011, 8:50 pmNM Kerr says:
We didn’t have to dig very far since Pawlenty, Huckabee and other prominent republican shave all made news worthy announcements on his show
March 28, 2011, 8:51 pmManju says:
Its incompatable with Islam.
March 28, 2011, 9:44 pmRicardo says:
Mike Huckabee has, apparently, heard of Bryan Fischer and took time out of his schedule to appear on Fischer’s radio show. Michele Bachmann, also. Is Huckabee a member of the wacky, fringe right-wing, also?
March 28, 2011, 10:03 pmRicardo says:
That sounds right. Anti-anti-communism gave birth to “anti-anti-racism” with the latter continuing until the present day.
An added dimension with Islam is that it is a global phenomenon and American Muslims don’t live in the shadows the way Communists did. Attacks that are perceived (whether correctly or not) as being leveled at Muslims as a group will tend to empower the most reactionary elements within that group. That’s just human nature. It’s like the “freedom fries” nonsense: many Americans perceived themselves as being under collective attack by France and temporarily devolved into (an admittedly mild and almost comical) bigotry in response.
It seems in everyone’s interest to tell the people claiming that Muslims can’t be real Americans to STFU. At the same time, there are real concerns about radical Islam that can’t be pooh-poohed. That makes Islam a trickier issue than Jim Crow or Communism.
March 28, 2011, 10:22 pmjukeboxgrad says:
highplains:
You seem to think that there’s no such thing as an unbigoted conservative. How amusing.
manju:
You’re making a fair point. The dynamics can be complicated, and no two situations are going to be exactly comparable. As Ricardo said, some of these issues are trickier than others. But my basic point about Bawer is that this issue I raised seems to not even dawn on him at all. Which makes it hard to take him seriously.
March 29, 2011, 12:16 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Unlike your Michael Moore example, this one strikes me as completely apropos.
March 29, 2011, 12:58 amzuch says:
Good thing Christianity doesn’t have that problem, eh?
Cheers,
March 29, 2011, 1:09 amKanageloa says:
Islam is a theocracey. A religious government with a doctrine to change what ever current or local government is to their way of life’s order. Does this represent a threat to our Democracy or Republic? Does it represent a threat to our free will or freedoms? Does it represent a threat to the status of women? Does it make women on equal with livestock? I read the Koran and yes it is a threat to our American way of life. Don’t take my word for it, open their book, read and understand what it says. You might not sleep well at night.
March 29, 2011, 10:05 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
How about people who listen to Fischer’s radio show. Can they be real Americans? People who might want to hear from politicians, for instance; people who might vote?
March 29, 2011, 10:18 pmzuch says:
We have Muslims in the United States. We are therefore a theocracey [sic]. Q.E.D.
Oh, waiddaminnit. The people in the majority here are Cris’shuns…. Different kind of theocracey [sic], I guess…
Cheers,
March 30, 2011, 2:20 amNM Kerr says:
When you actively support a person who attacks the military, justifies one of the worst genocides in world history and says that only christian have a right free speech by going on the scums show and not challenging any of those statements that shows at least tacit approval of his views.
Why would anyone moral appear on the show of someone who justifies genocide and says that Jews don’t have the right to free speech and religion
March 30, 2011, 3:18 amManju says:
There’s an idiosyncratic Neo-Conservative (Strauss, Bloom) interpretation of the First Amendment that goes like this:
The Enlightenment and subsequent Founding were a conscious but covert effort by philosophers to domesticate religion. The philosopher’s offered religion rights, ie “freedom of religion”. The religious accepted because it was in their self-interest to have others respect their life, liberty and property. This system works for everyone, not just the religious, because it’s a moral scheme rooted in self-interest.
But for religion, The flip side to the social contract…respecting the life, liberty, and property of others…creates a Faustian bargain. Religious law is no longer the ultimate arbiter of truth. Its now wrapped in a meta-morality, rights. Unlike regular morality, right is not the opposite of wrong but rather duty. It is Freedom. This is America’s “only principle of justice”, says Bloom, in what is his most libertarian moment AFAIK.
By accepting freedom religion religion ended up demoting itself. While the liberal regime kept its hands of religion, religion had to keep its hands off the regime. Ultimately this means accepting the regime’s meta morality. Religion had unknowingly agreed there was something above it.
Relgion was now defanged and moved further and further away from the center of power. It was relegated to the other-world of spirituality while philosophers tended to more serious matters of the state.
I don’t see why Muslims can’t be tricked into giving up their theocracy too. They’ve already embraced the language of rights and even if some are disingenuous, once one frames the debate in liberal terms, theocracy is ultimately undermined. They are a minority so the self-interest is strong.
Radical Islam is trying to trick us into suppressing regular Islam, knowing that once we do regular Muslims won’t sign the social contract. Conservatives need to listen to the original Neo-cons. The best way to crush the enemy is to let it do what it wants.
March 30, 2011, 3:56 amleo marvin says:
All political persuasions have proponents of dubious beliefs about what makes one a better person. The notion, however, that any American is more “real” an American than any other is a delusion I’ve only ever seen espoused by some on the right.
March 30, 2011, 4:28 amRicardo says:
Not sure what this has to do with the point I was making but Bryan Fischer has made enough public statements that a reasonable person could read them and conclude the man is a windbag and a bigot. Politicians are welcome to appear on his show — in fact, it is rather clarifying to see people like Huckabee and Gingrich let everyone know where they stand. Huckabee used his opportunity on Fischer’s program to point out that Obama isn’t a real American because he grew up surrounded by madrassas in Kenya. Huckabee gives the pretty amusing impression of someone who wants to agree with Dinesh D’Souza while being too dim-witted to fully understand D’Souza’s talking points.
As for his listeners, people are free to listen to whatever they want without automatic guilt-by-association just like everyone else.
March 30, 2011, 4:34 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Leo, I’ve seen it often enough. It’s just not articulated. Years ago on Salon Tabletalk I argued with some folks who were incensed that “Puritans” wanted to vote their morality into the American political system. I pointed out that as Americans, it was as much those people’s right to try to bring about their vision of America through the political process as it was anyone else’s. That was a new thought to some, as evidenced by their verbal spluttering.
March 30, 2011, 8:28 amSpecial Rights For Christians in First Amendment | Tangled Up in Blue Guy says:
[...] Islam and the First Amendment (volokh.com) [...]
March 30, 2011, 9:01 amRicardo says:
Surely, just as the American political process would not be complete without people calling each other’s visions stupid, fraudulent or hypocritical. There is still an important distinction between standard partisanship and nativist rhetoric, though.
In the latter, it isn’t merely the case that someone just has ideas that are wrong but that this person is inherently untrustworthy and/or incapable of appreciating American values in the first place because of his ethnicity, national background or religious affiliation. This kind of argument is rightly recognized by most people as deserving of opprobrium.
March 30, 2011, 9:06 amKanageloa says:
zuch, did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not or you would have gotten the point. Just because we have a religion in the U.S. doesn’t make it a theocracy. We have the KKK, Black Panthers and Mexican drug cartels in the U.S. Does that make us a hate filled drug pushing country? Our current American way of life will be changed dramatically, many freedoms lost if our country is governed by Islam. Go visit an islamic country and see how free they are.
March 30, 2011, 9:41 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Are you saying that Fischer says Muslims are not real Americans, or are you saying that Fischer is not a real American?
March 30, 2011, 10:22 amzuch says:
Kanageloa, did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not or you would have gotten the point.
Cheers,
March 30, 2011, 11:22 amRicardo says:
Fischer himself says this: he describes Islam as a “treasonous ideology.”
That isn’t my kind of rhetoric. Fischer’s views are noxious in any country, not just in America. Still, if you want to press the point, I would go as far as to say that Fischer’s views (which are very clearly stated in the linked article) are at odds with what I consider core American values as well as being based on factually incorrect claims. That’s just a simple judgment based on a comparison of his own clearly stated views with the values of freedom of speech and religion. One could say the same of certain Muslims who have put forward similarly noxious views — one cannot, however, attribute those views to every person who affiliates with a Muslim community.
March 30, 2011, 11:27 amjukeboxgrad says:
Kanageloa:
Good thing we never hear Christian leaders talking that way.
http://volokh.com/2011/03/25/islam-and-the-first-amendment/#comment-1162465
laura:
If and when you can show specific examples of this, I’ll join you in condemning it.
manju:
Thank you for raising this important and subtle point, and expressing it so clearly.
This reminds me of what gooners said yesterday on another thread:
http://volokh.com/2011/03/28/return-on-investment-of-thuggery/#comment-1164023
“Domesticate religion” is a helpful phrase. This is what gooners called “under control.”
And the irony is that religion thrives the most (as it does in this country) when it’s prevented from taking control of the government. Taking over the government is the ultimate goal of religious fundamentalists everywhere, both Muslim and Christian.
The founders understood the importance, to both government and religion, of keeping those two things separate. And that separation is what both Muslim and Christian fundamentalists seek to undermine. And only one of those two groups is a major force in a major US party. If they weren’t a major force, we wouldn’t be discussing Bryan Fischer.
The fundamentalists who live down the street and vote in American elections are more of a threat to my freedom than the ones hiding in a cave on the other side of the planet.
March 30, 2011, 2:21 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Jbg, if those fundamentalists who live down the street are eligible to vote in American elections, then they are American citizens with just as much right as you to have a vision of America that they would like to bring about through the electoral process. Just as much right as you, neither more nor less. Is this a new concept for you?
March 30, 2011, 6:45 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Where did I say that they are not “American citizens with just as much right as [me] to have a vision of America that they would like to bring about through the electoral process?”
I can believe they have the right to “bring about” their “vision of America,” and I can also believe that their “vision of America” is abominable and a threat to my freedom. A greater threat to my freedom than the threat posed by those other fundamentalists hiding in a cave on the other side of the world.
It would be good if you refrained from suggesting I believe something that is different from what I’ve actually said. Is this a new concept for you?
March 30, 2011, 10:09 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Here’s a concept for you:
Poke me and I might poke back. I refrain a lot of the time, but sometimes I don’t. If you don’t want to be on the receiving end, then don’t talk to me like this:
like I was making stuff up to convince you of something, when I wasn’t talking to you in the first place.
March 30, 2011, 10:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
There’s a difference between a “poke” and a substantive remark. What you did, and are still doing, is strictly the former. What I said to you was not a “poke.” It was a fair challenge, which you are ducking.
If you have something to say to someone and you want to make sure you receive a response from them and only them, a public forum is the wrong place to have that conversation.
Let’s review. Leo said this:
You responded as follows:
You claimed that something you’ve seen “often enough” is people on the left promoting the view that “any American is more ‘real’ an American than any other.”
And then you give us a vague example from “years ago” on some obscure forum. And you say “it’s just not articulated.” What’s that supposed to mean? You seem to be saying ‘they don’t say it, but I know that’s what they’re thinking.’
At this point it’s reasonable to conclude that what you did on that forum is what you just tried to do with me: put words in my mouth. You suggested that I believe that fundamentalist Christians are not “American citizens with just as much right as [me] to have a vision of America that they would like to bring about through the electoral process.” Except that I never said that.
So yes, I do think you are “making stuff up,” and that you cannot substantiate your claim about what you have allegedly seen “often enough.”
I don’t know why you would think I would care whether or not I happen “to be on the receiving end” of any “poke” you might care to deliver. I couldn’t care less. What I care about is whether I can learn something because you show me something I didn’t know. You are claiming the existence of something I haven’t seen. That’s why I’d like to know if you can actually show us where it’s hidden. But I’m pretty sure that you can’t deliver that kind of substantive answer, and will instead deliver either another worthless “poke” or nothing at all.
And just to be clear, the relevant context is what Palin said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102449.html
March 30, 2011, 10:50 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
“Years ago on Salon Tabletalk” is what I said. If you want to go sorting through Salon Tabletalk then knock yourself right out. Or tell yourself that I made all of this up out of whole cloth; liberals are rational, tolerant, etc;. and the rest of us are Sarah Palin clones (Sarah Palin, really? A quote from three years ago?) because you will anyway, regardless of what I say. I will now return to my former policy of ignoring your posts. Hopefully you will return the favor.
March 30, 2011, 11:34 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You said you were describing a phenomenon that happens “often enough.” “Often enough” for what? I guess it happens so “often” that you can’t present a single example.
If it truly happened “often” then you wouldn’t be telling me that it’s up to me find proof for a claim that was made by you.
The idea that I ever said that fundamentalist Christians are not “American citizens with just as much right as [me] to have a vision of America that they would like to bring about through the electoral process” is something that you indeed “made up.” And you still haven’t taken responsibility for making that up, so it’s quite reasonable to conclude that you’ve “made up” some other stuff, too. Especially because this false accusation you made against me is the same accusation you are making against those unnamed people you ran into “years ago.”
And your odd words that you have not explained (“it’s just not articulated”) seem to indicate that you know that you’re making it up, i.e., accusing people of saying something they haven’t actually said.
She’s arguably the current GOP frontrunner, but you seem to think that her statements have no relevance in a discussion about attitudes in the GOP. That’s funny.
Another good joke. Your anecdote was about something that was allegedly said “years ago.” So your vague recollection of what was said by an unknown person on an obscure forum “years ago” is relevant, but Palin’s statement from 10/08 is not? That’s funny. It’s not just that you have a double standard, but that you’re making it really obvious.
By the way, the interval is closer to two years, not three years. But why not exaggerate?
Promises, promises.
If you make accusations based on nothing but pure wind and then expect me to refrain from pointing out that you have done so, no, that’s not the kind of “favor” you should expect from me. A better idea would be for you to do everyone a favor and refrain from making accusations you can’t support.
March 31, 2011, 12:14 amIslam, secularism, and liberalism (part 2) « Wood Thrush says:
[...] written solely to protect Christianity and its various observances. And that’s such obvious ignorance and distortion. It’s quite clear that the authors of the Bill of Rights and its antecedents had a conception [...]
April 19, 2011, 10:22 am