Here is part of the first amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The founders were so concerned that the Federal government would promote a state religion or work on behalf of any one religion over another or work in any way to establish any religion that they addressed it first. They must have thought it pretty important.
But we have a situation where he state department has decided to hire imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to represent America and help fund raise for the ground zero mosque he wants to be built in New York. We are hiring this foul-mouthed zealot to represent our government in a push to show that Islam is more important to this administration than any other religion. The administration has chosen to support Islam and the concerns of Islam in a direct display of subservience. If this administration were not subservient to the tenets of Islam, there would be no concern over what private citizens do with any image of any aspect of the religion nor would there be any concern with the religion at all. After all, there are zoning laws in every major city that preclude certain types of business or organizations from building in the area. For example, Mayor Gulliani used zoning to eliminate sex oriented businesses in parts of the city. Sex is one thing but religion is another. The government is prohibited from getting involved with ANY religion.
The American photoartist Andres Serrano created an image of a crucifix in a beaker of urine. He called it "Piss Christ" and while many Catholics complained, the image was not censored because the first amendment prohibits government involvement in religious matters. Interestingly, the Constitution does not prohibit religion from being involved in politics but it prohibits government from acting on behalf or for the interests of any specific religion. In other words, we can't take federal funds and use them to promote the activities of any religion. NO PUBLIC FUNDS CAN BE USED TO PROMOTE THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY RELIGION.
Now how in the world does the administration justify any process where an Imam is sent into Muslim countries to promote. . what. . . how tolerant we are of their intolerance? Just what the hell is going on with this administration? Supposedly Obama is a Christian who went to a Christian church where a great deal of the sermons were anti-American in nature. But his orientation should still be Christian. He may subjugate his beliefs to laws which should be expected. For example, he may believe that abortion is the same as murder but as president, he must uphold the laws of the land and these laws allow abortion to occur. But how he deals with his own beliefs is a far cry from supporting a religion because that same religion threatens to wage war and bomb us and terrorize us for any number of reasons both false and factual. We have no prohibition on showing religious images in any way. The government can't control how we lampoon or laud any religious figure. But we can't show images of Mohammed because we are afraid of what? Just what does free speech mean when the government will fight to allow something like "Piss Christ" and fights to prohibit a simple representation of Mohammed?
I constantly hear that fundamental Christians are the same as fundamental Muslims but nobody and I mean nobody is afraid of offending Christianity because he knows that as loony as some zany Christian sects are, they don't go around bombing people over satire. The two are not comparable but we have been sold this illusion in a way to dull reality. That reality is that Islam is at war with the West and Christianity represents the West.
So I call for an immediate suspension of any "mission" carried out by Imam Rauf or any other Muslim cleric chartered by the state department to carry out any official or semi-official duties. This is like sending Reverand Ike to Germany or Denmark to show how Christianity works in his Christian sect and fund raise for his special project. (As a matter of fact, I have a lot of respect for Reverend Ike and his ministry.) But we can't do that because to send a Christian because he is a Christian would bring the first amendment howlers out of their closets and onto the streets. Where are the constitutional scholars protesting this plan to send a Muslim Cleric out to do state department business with Muslims? Nowhere. It's hip in intellectual circles to be tolerant of Islam and even to overtly support Muslim causes. In intellectual circles, Muslim inferiority feelings are believed as if Muslims are somehow not as successful as Western countries because of some overriding plot against Islam. Such is not the case. But remember, we are dealing with intellectuals. While they may ponder the why of things, as ee cummings noted: "they will never wholly kiss you." The absolute irony of this is that if one looks at the names of many of the Muslim apologists, they are predominantly Jewish. How could we have Jewish academics supporting the causes of a religion that has as a primary tenet the conversion or death of Jews? How can they support any religion with branches, like the Catholic Jesuits, who act as shock troops for the religion? How can they support the potential of groups who have the death of Israel and Jews as a basis for membership? How can the world have been turned so upside down?
If this is an attempt to show other countries that America is moving towards Islam, the administration is violating the constitution. Even sending this Imam because he is a Muslim is prohibited by the Constitution. It appears that the only reason Obama studied the Constitution was to find ways to get around it and potentially destroy the charter. It's time he is censured and thrown out of office. Nixon's cover up and "hit list" along with his misuse of the FBI is child's play compared to the liberties the Obama administration is taking with the constitution.
FB
No comments:
Post a Comment