E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

A proposed principle and guidelines re: Islam / other religions and the US
Rolled over from yesterday, by request.
by lotp:

UPDATE: from the comments below:

The question on the table here is what principle shall the Right and Right/Libertarians in the United States advance with regard to OTOH the deep constitutional principle of freedom of religion and OTOH the threat to that constitution and principle by e.g. militant Islam and soft as well as hard jihad.

In other words, can the Right and the Right/Libertarians articulate a principled response to those who say the Constitution should be interpreted to allow such things as shari'ah courts that are sanctioned to operate instead of secular law?

Or must we say that there is no Constitutional basis to address this? What then?
---------
In the thread for today's Bloid, "SofaSoldier" suggests that Islam is trending away from moderation.

That may be true. It's certainly what the Wahabists and the Salafists want to be the case, and they understand that creating such a public perception can eventually create the reality itself.

Which is why, IMO, it's way overdue for the Right and the Tea Party to articulate clear principles that go beyond slogans for dealing with this.

Here's one to try on and critique. It addresses a confusion / lack of understanding I've found among naturalizated citizens who grew up Muslim and consider themselve moderate, but who haven't really internalized what the Constitution is all about. It might clarify a few things for historically illiterate leftists, too.

The US was founded on a radical idea: that the religious and political liberty of a religious nation is best ensured by a system of government that carefully avoids legal establishment of any religion at the expense of other religions, including the unbelief of those who profess no religion.

This means that Muslims and those of other religions are welome to participate in this country, provided they accept and live by the following guidelines:

- they swear loyalty to the Constitution and as a consequence of that oath, live in accordance with the law of this land

- they agree that shari'ah law or other religious codes must not take precedence over the Constitution and our secular laws

- they agree that conversion to Islam / their religion can be sought, but only by putting out their message and living lives they hope will be attractive to others

- they do not seek to stifle criticism of Islam / their religion, which they are free to counter peacefully in debate - but not otherwise

- they recognize that, in the event they abrogate these priciples (for instance, by advocating shari'ah courts or funding groups that seek to attack and destroy this country using whatever means) then this society and this country will take the necessary actions to expel the invading foreign attack from our midst.

Muslims and anyone else who can live with these guidelines are welcome, subject to the legal processes for immigration and naturalization if they are not native born.

Because this principle is foundational to the Constitution and to our way of life, those who are unwilling to adhere to these guidelines have no automatic right to live here whether native born or not and should go elsewhere. Should they actively seek to undermine the Constitution or otherwise attack us, we will treat them as enemies and destroy them.


A moderate and well educated Muslim I know was actively startled when I told him this was a principle I was willing to fight and die to preserve. It would, I think, apply equally well to violent militias that claim to be acting as Christians while in fact seeking to overthrow the Constitution and legally valid authorities.

Anyway, that's a first pass at wording - your comments / refinement welcome.
Posted by: 2011-10-18
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=331794