“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
–Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835.
Mike Scruggs- Most Americans place a high value on religious freedom. That religious freedom is guaranteed by the first 16 words of the First Amendment to the Constitutions”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
America’s founders felt strongly about the issue because many had experienced persecution and discrimination as dissenters from established national churches in Europe. This even followed them to the Colonies, and was a significant issue dividing Americans from the British Crown and Parliament.
Let us firmly note that there are two issues here, both of which are very important:
1. The U.S. Congress shall not establish a national religion. The historical background almost certainly means that Congress shall not establish any religious denomination as the official or preferred denomination.
2 The U.S. Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
We should also firmly note that it is the U.S Congress, and not state governments or the people, which are forbidden to establish a state church. New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia maintained the Church of England as their established church. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire had Congregational established state churches
After Independence, state churches were slowly phased out on the volition of their own people, common practice, and state legislatures. It has become generally accepted that governments at all levels have little business regulating the internal affairs of churches or denominations.
However, no Constitutional Amendment has ever taken away the right of states to preserve and honor the historical and current religious traditions of their people.
Yet in 2003, a Jimmy Carter appointed Federal District Judge ordered the State of Alabama to take down its display of the Ten Commandments. No Federal Judge had the right to do this, but a majority of the Alabama Supreme Court did not favor confrontation with Federal courts, and would not back the resistance position of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. However, on November 6, 2018, 15 years later, a legislatively referred Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was passed with 73 percent of the popular vote. A “yes” vote supported amending the state constitution to authorize the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, including public schools, and to establish certain religious rights.
The Amendment did not in any way reduce the liberty of individuals to practice religion according to their own conscience. The Amendment, however, was weakened by limitations and by preventing public funds from being used to defend it in court. The people of Alabama have spoken, but will their leaders have the courage to defend their rights?
I have always admired the Alabama State Motto:
“Audemus jura nostra denfendere.” (We dare defend our rights.)
The foregoing discussion has been background for understanding America’s current religious dilemma in dealing with Muslim immigration. The necessity of understanding the dilemma of Muslim immigration in certainly a sensitive subject and vulnerable to all the usual denunciations that the chains of political correctness impose upon essential truth. However, failure to discuss this issue defaults to impending national destruction. Those who would prohibit this discussion are inviting disaster on a grand scale.
A quote from Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, underscores the dilemma that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious groups have in considering the threat that Islam brings to their own religious faith and practice:
“It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
Hassan al-Banna’s words are perfectly consistent with the doctrines of Islamic Supremacy and Jihad spelled out voluminously in the Koran, the traditions of Muhammad (Sunna), and Sharia Law.
The founders probably visualized religious freedom as tolerating a broad range of Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, and Catholic orders as well as atheism and agnosticism, but not those that posed a danger to American religious culture and Western civilization.
They would surely have considered it dangerous to tolerate religions having doctrinal standards that call for the oppression or elimination of Christians and Jews. They would certainly have raised their eyebrows at Islam. The Koran, the foremost doctrinal standard of Islam, contains many exhortations to violence against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims. This is even truer of the nearly as sacred and more voluminous Sunna, the sayings and acts of Muhammad.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), French political scientist and author of Democracy in America in 1835, spoke frankly:
“I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that there had been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.”
The problem with Islam is that its founding documents contain many exhortations to violence against non-Muslims, reflecting a dualistic ethical and judicial system that treats Muslims and non-Muslims differently. Christianity and Judaism have a unitary ethical system, which is best expressed by the “Golden Rule” in Matthew 7:12: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (ESV). The golden rule of Islam is following the example of Muhammad, which is exhorted scores of times in the Koran. There is also the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya that allows Muslims to lie to defend or advance Islam. The doctrine of Kitman allows Muslims to omit part of the truth. These Islamic doctrines present a significant national security challenge to reliable vetting of most visa applications.
There are many so-called moderate Muslims who do not adhere strictly to the teachings of the Koran, the Sunna, or Sharia Law. These are mainly secularized or purely cultural Muslims. There are also a few moderate sects of Islam, like the Alawites in Syria, who cooperate with Christians and have even adopted some Christian holidays. These sects, however, are considered heretical by mainstream Sunni and Shia clergy. Many of these “moderate: Muslims have been true friends and important allies. But what about those who are ardent fundamentalists bent on imposing Islam, Jihad, and Sharia Law everywhere? How can we be sure who is dangerous and who is not?
America’s dilemma is not a small one with small consequences. The consequences of lax immigration vetting have become nation-destroying—just as ignoring our border crisis any longer is near the point of national destruction. Unless we force ourselves to recognize the truth and our danger and act with strong and urgent political determination to preserve our country, we will soon lose all our First Amendment freedoms and then all other freedoms.
We do not have to speculate about the dangers. We can look at Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, and Belgium to see actual results of careless immigration policies resulting in the increasing Islamization of these countries. The consequent social, cultural, and fiscal problems are growing, and the government cover up of the problems is becoming totalitarian. Moreover, they are losing control of government and public safety. They are surely nearing the brink of cultural, social, and political disaster.
Our immigration dilemma is not one that will tolerate complacency. The RMS Titanic ignored six iceberg warnings before she collided with an iceberg and sank into the North Atlantic on April 15, 1912. More than 1,500 of her 2,224 passengers and crew perished. Complacency is often a grim reaper. It is time to pay close attention and to dare defend our rights, freedoms, and culture.
“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge”—Hosea 4: 6