Friday, September 08, 2006
Go! This post will still be here when you are done, unless Blogspot crashes and burns.
The first thing that crossed my mind is, what does the First Amendment's right of religious freedom mean when it is confronted with a religion that has among its tenets that sharia law must supplant secular law and that the worldwide caliphate must supplant all nation-states? In other words, if it is true that good Muslims are required to work toward overthrowing the government and replace it with an Islamic state, does the First Amendment's free exercise clause require that the government let them do so? If not, where should the law draw the line between free exercise of religion and sedition?
The establishment and free exercise clauses were written in the historical context of established state religions such as Catholicism in the Holy Roman Empire and Spain and the Church of England in Britain. It seems pretty obvious to me that the Founding Fathers were not thinking of Islam when they authored the Bill of Rights. However, the notion of religious beliefs outside the established church being equated with treason and sedition is something that they were undoubtedly familiar with.
I think that this is the question that will ultimately determine whether the United States Constitution is in fact a suicide pact. Alternatively, the Muslim infiltration of Western society as described by Fjordman will become so complete as to make the issue moot.
Those who think this issue will go away are ostriching.