Islam in America A Religious and Constitutional Dilemma

Mike Scruggs

Most Americans place a high value on religious freedom. Our religious freedom is guaranteed by the first 16 words of the First Amendment to the Constitution:

“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.

However, we should note that it was the U.S. Congress—not state governments—that was forbidden to establish a national church. This protected several states that had loosely enforced official denominations at the time of its passage in 1789. Furthermore, the Amendment prohibits Congress and the Federal government from restricting the free exercise of religion. It protects all the states and their people from potential Federal interference in matters of faith.

A little remembered issue of the Revolutionary War was that the British had threatened to establish Anglican bishops over the Colonies. This threat was especially alarming to the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians who had suffered political discrimination by the British in Northern Ireland. The issue was prominent enough at the time to cause some British officials to refer to the growing resistance to British rule over the Colonies as “the Presbyterian Rebellion.”

It was in complete disregard of the First Amendment that a Jimmy Carter appointed Federal District Judge ordered the State of Alabama to take down its display of the Ten Commandments. In recent years, the Fourteenth Amendment, officially but not legally ratified in 1868 (See my book: The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths.), has been used to suppress any outward expression of Christianity under the pretext of protecting religious freedom.

The founders had a strong tendency to equate “religion” with Christianity, or more broadly, Judeo-Christian beliefs. Thus they thought of religious freedom as roughly contained within the brackets of Judeo-Christian belief, but with allowance for agnostic or even atheistic dissent. They did not fully anticipate the consequences of religious freedom for a religion whose foundational doctrines call for heavy-handed and violent suppression of other religions. The Koran, the foremost doctrinal standard of Islam, contains many exhortations to violence against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims. These doctrines, frequently elaborated in the teachings and example of Muhammad, also oppose democratic institutions and the concept of Constitutional government. Hence Islam presents a prickly dilemma to American thinking about religious freedom. Alexis de Tocqueville 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.”

Yet under the influence of multiculturalism, political correctness, lavishly financed Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, and political expediency the three most recent American presidents have called Islam a religion of peace and tolerance. A more thorough study of the Koran, the teachings of Muhammad, history, and current events completely refutes that notion.

Recently, Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain was asked if he would appoint a Muslim to a responsible position in his administration. He answered with a brave and forthright, “No!” and elaborated on the dangers of Sharia (Islamic Law) undermining the Constitution. A primary goal of Islam is to bring all nations under Sharia. Cain is one of several Republican candidates who have courageously demonstrated some knowledge of Islam. Others are hiding under political correctness blankets.

Later Cain backed off somewhat by saying he would appoint a Muslim who swore to support the Constitution. But even swearing to support the Constitution is little guarantee of true allegiance to the Constitution and the good of the American people. We have seen many American leaders disregard the Constitution they swore to protect and enforce, while saluting it with empty rhetoric. President Obama is not the only Constitutional covenant breaker, but he is among the worst.

More sobering in regards to relying solely on official swearing to uphold the Constitution is the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya, which derives it authority from 92:17 and 49:13 in the Koran. This doctrine allows Muslims to lie to and deceive non-Muslims in order to protect or advance Islam. Koran 9:29 also allows Muslims to suppress non-Muslims unless they convert to Islam.

Thus appointing Muslims to high office or even allowing them to immigrate here and become citizens presents considerably more risk to the American people and to the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution than the adherents of most other religions.

Americans are thus faced with a dilemma on religious freedom when applied to Muslims. Unlike other religious freedom issues, this one entails high risks to national security, public safety, Constitutional government, and the continued religious freedom of non-Muslims. The Supreme Court of the United States has, however, consistently ruled that the right to exercise religious freedom is not absolute. Head-hunting, cannibalism, child-sacrifice, and polygamy are not allowed.

Complicating our dilemma is the fact that most American voters and political leaders are ignorant of the true nature of Islam. Furthermore, the chains of political correctness are so heavily forged in academia, the mainstream media, government, and many highly secularized churches that we may not recognize the demise of our security and freedoms until we have been swallowed up by the radical changes that are already overtaking us.

Many politicians and political candidates will try to avoid the issue or shove our dilemma under a comfortable rhetorical rug, but their lack of courage could be nation-destroying.