Is Islam a seditious movement in the US?

We had a debate about whether Islam is a seditious movement in the US some time ago. I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be deemed to be seditious simply because the First Amendment protects freedom of religions.

I think this underlying problem is what causes quite a few people on the right to try to argue that Islam is not a religion, but this argument is fallacious I think along the lines of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy; Islam meets the definition of a religion, it has a deity etc.

Any thoughts?

3 Likes

I think the problem lies in the fact that it is MORE than a Religion, that not only controls it’s followers, but it has an actual MANDATE to take over the entire rest of the World, and force them under the Islamic Yoke, the same as Christians do- Except Christianity lost it’s fire,and Islam has not. Or rather, To be perfectly Honest, HAD lost it, until WE reinvigorated them, and trained them to do our Bidding, and then lost control of them. But Islam is NOT a religion like the average American, or even the average Westerner, OR Easterner, understands. It is a THEOCRATIC Religion,which is, by it’s very nature, Political, and it’s tenets are also, without argument, incompatible with Western traditions of both Society, as well as Rule of Law, and I would argue the same for most Easterners, as well. Which arguably, none of the others are, or at least, are not any longer. With the exception of the corrupted Church of Rome.
What other religion has passages in it specifically regarding how to infiltrate foreign Societies, until they are Strong enough in numbers to basically pull off a power Coup and take over, and force ALL to Submit to Islam, or Die ? If THAT is not seditious, to Western Society, I’m not sure we have the same definition… We SHOULD have left it alone, long ago, when it had gone virtually dormant. But we didn’t, and it is the 12th Century again, and the Moors are not at the door, they have already gotten inside the Battlements. There ARE ex Muslims who at great risk, will tell you all this, if anyone actually wanted to listen. I know that OUTRIGHT “Religious” discrimination, is alien to most Americans. It even took me a great deal of study of sorting it all out to see what this is, but it is NOT benign and they will NOT integrate, and even those fictional ‘moderates’ will not lift a hand if it comes to going against their native beliefs, regardless of how devout they are now. It is as hard for most Muslims to break completely Free, as it is for Mormons and other deeply 'Social" Christian sects. Hard it is, to leave everything, and all your family and friends behind, simply for an ‘idea’, right ? But many of us here have done it, and know how hard it is. So I do not hold a lot of hope for non Westerners here to go against their Families and Communities.It is going to be a problem soon, here, like it is in the UK, in areas. They too are playing a long game. Thats what I firmly believe, and what the evidence shows to me.

2 Likes

All that may be true, but it doesn’t alter the problem I have outlined in the post above, that Islam is a religion, and religions as I understand it are protected by the First Amendment (whether they are political, seditious etc. or not).

In the hypothetical situation where we needed to draw up a new constitution for a new nation, what I would do is take the First Amendment without the clause on freedom of religions; I don’t think religions deserve special protection from the law.

3 Likes

I’ve read at the Cornel Law school website of the US constitution that the 1st amendment said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” making it a declaration of secularism.

5 Likes

I love that idea, and couldn’t agree more. It has always been one of the sticking points I have always had with our original Constitution, as much as I do revere it, as it is a brilliant document, but even the Founders knew,and put in place, ways to adapt it as time and experience showed it needs to be altered, at least in details. I also think that no modern Churches should be tax exempt, at least, as long as we still have taxes. I am opposed to them, yes, I’m a Taxation is Theft type, but if we ARE stuck with them, no one should get a pass. I think religion should have SOME protections, but even that is a slippery slope as well. I think Religion should be Free, but NOT above the Basic Western Rule of Law all the Rest of us are subject to. I don’t really care whether you’re a junky, a career hitman, or a nut who says 'demons ’ made you do it- Murder is still Murder, for example, and no religious ‘beliefs’ should get a pass if you break a fundamental Law such as that.

3 Likes

Indeed, it was in my understanding a declaration of the separation of church and state, designed to facilitate the co-existence of the many different Christian sects in the new nation.

Unfortunately, the (possibly) unintended consequence was that it protected ALL religions regardless of whatever those religions advocated - that’s the issue I see with the First Amendment in this day and age. At the time it was written most people were Christians, so they didn’t really have to worry about the problems of a multi-cultural society that we face today. [Edit - see comment from Jeanne below, apparently Jefferson in particular was in fact thinking about other religions at the time]

2 Likes

My idea is that religions don’t need any special protections because the universal protections e.g. on freedom of speech and against violent acts of murder, persecution etc. are all-encompassing - a group of religious zealots in their garb are as protected as a man in a business suit is from acts of violence etc.

As for your point about taxation, there have been a great many examples of dangerous extremist religious groups gaining charitable status in the UK, indeed again it would be better for all groups and organizations to be subject to the same laws, rules etc…

3 Likes

And was also meant as a protection against discriminatory Actions by the Government, so they can’t show favor and bias, exactly as we have seen with the new Leftism, which I am starting to seriously consider a religion, the same as any other. Look at how Leftist Judges and Prosecutors adjudicate the Law, according to ‘what’ you are on the Political spectrum. It was just THAT very type of discrimination that Separation of Church and State was meant to avoid. Beliefs are Beliefs are Beliefs, regardless of whether they are codified in an organized ‘religion’. At least thats how I see it.

3 Likes

Good points, there. I think that perhaps all it needs is just simple protection to exist, as you deem fit. But the actions of either you, or IT, as a public entity, are and should be subject to Law, regardless of what you believe. For instance,that was really the base for allowing actual Nazis their Freedoms back in the Day. you can think and discourse about whatever you wish. If you and your friends want to stand around all day, breaking NO common Laws, and hate whomever, Fine. But as soon as you start taking unlawful ACTIONS, is where EVERYTHING Should Change. That’s kinda my take on it. I am understandably distrustful of ANY types of ‘thought crimes’. But it has also been my experience that MOST ‘extremists’ eventually fade out in their beliefs, when time and life show them there is no real validity to them. Which is what concerns me most about what it is going on now. The Govt is giving Truth to many previously fringe ideas. The biggest is their harping on this ‘insurrection’ bullshit. They are setting the stage for a genuine one, the more they push with their obvious lies. At least, obvious to all but the Leftist true believers. Average Citizens no longer have rational, equal protections under the Law, and most of us know it. Why then, shouldn’t we be entertaining the idea of revolt ? It is in our national Blood. We wouldn’t even EXIST without that Will to Rebel when We The People deem it in our best interest, when some tyranny becomes unbearable. The Patriots of the 1770s would have already done so, and most of us on this side of the spectrum know that. Not to mention the Patriots had they lost, would be the Confederacy of todays political ire.

2 Likes

Good question. I think the First Amendment should definitely prohibit the establishment of religion by the state, and of giving any religion special protection - there should be total separation.
As someone pointed out here, all rights should be based on the individual, not groups, even religions.
Unlike what we now have with government subsidizing churches to take in “refugees”.
Or giving exemptions based on religion - this stupidity of “religious exemption” from getting the vaccine, for instance. You can only get exempted if you are religious?? That leaves us atheists out, I guess. It should be the right of every individual, based on their personal choice, PERIOD.
As for Islam, I think a good case for them being more than a religion - a political ideology - is made by Pam Gellar’s group who brought a case for them to be designated as such, but of course in our current political situation, hasn’t gotten anywhere.
I’ll try to find my notes on it.

4 Likes

I’d be interested to see that, but my point that even if you did determine that a religious group was political or seditious you still couldn’t get around the problem that they are ALSO a religious group, and if the sedition in question was part of their religious belief system you would still have the fundamental problem I outlined above.

2 Likes

Chauncey - Should the First Amendment protect a religion that insists on human sacrifice? (There are such religions to this day.)

Surely a crime must be treated as a crime regardless of whether some people do it in obedience to their religion’s commandment?

Islam plots, always has plotted, openly to impose itself on the whole world and replace all other systems of law with its own - and to do it by violent means. That is a crime. The ideology is criminal.

5 Likes

No, it certainly should not, but it does. , as per my other comment the founding fathers presumably didn’t contemplate that there would ever be a serious problem with non-Christian religions. Unfortunately if someone in the US were to suggest the First Amendment should be amended to correct this problem they could be accused of sedition themselves I suppose?

Any act of violence would not be protected by the US Constitution, but the plotting of the crime would be protected, as long as it was not deemed to be immediate incitement. I agree that the ideology is criminal in any reasonable assessment, but I think the First Amendment protects it regardless.

My conclusion is that Islam can only be peacefully defeated in the US through debate.

2 Likes

As far as I know, “religion” is nowhere defined.

A public statement inciting violence is a crime.

If I say I have a private religion that requires me to incite violence and I go ahead and incite it - in speech and/or writing - my “religion” claim will not protect me.

It should not protect any Muslim who does it.

Sure, “Islam” cannot be banned. But the preachers of jihad could be. The books of Islam, or at least many suras in the Koran and passages in the hadith, could be.

But jihad is a form of terrorism, and Western governments have been terrorized by Islam, and no government has the courage to take action against it because every individual in the government would fear for his/her life.

So Islamic terrorism has paid off. The lesson to be drawn is - terrorism works!

Tolerance must never extend to the intolerant. That the Framers never imagined there could be a religion so intolerant that it would mass-kill (viz. Nigeria now) to have its way, is regrettable but irremediable. (It was forgetful of them - Catholic and Protestant Christianity did it.)

I too prefer debate to any other form of conflict. I too value the US Constitution. But our tolerant, liberal-democratic, libertarian-conservative opinion will not, cannot, protect us. Our enemies - Communism above all in the form of China, and militant Islam are winning. Not winning a debate. Winning by taking active violent advantage of our tolerance, our liberty, our laws, our humanity.

What appalling hopeless lesson must logic compel us to draw from that?

4 Likes

Dare I say it’s defined in the dictionary, I don’t see anything there that would exclude Islam :

[sarc] Theresa May, the great authority on religions, even said that it was one of the world’s great religions [sarc off].

I found an interesting article about the legal definition:

Quote:

the Supreme Court has never articulated a formal definition for religion

It would be interesting to get a lawyer’s take on all this though, any lawyers reading this care to comment?

3 Likes

A public incitement is only illegal in the US if it is deemed to be an “immediate” incitement. The Orlando nightclub shooting is a good example, although this was made “behind closed doors” and he since went back to Iran it seems:

Apparently he also later said:

“We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same. Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”

I don’t think this imam was ever prosecuted.

3 Likes

“What appalling hopeless lesson must logic compel us to draw from that?”

That we Too, MUST be willing to take the chance of Death and/or legal issues, to visit preemptive violence on THEM, First. THAT’S how such Warfare works. If we AREN’T, they WILL win by default. Simple as that.
HOW to do that, and stay both alive, AND unincarcerated, are the ‘tricks’ that we must figure out, at some point. Unless they do something so visibly heinous as to lose ALL Support overnite, so to speak. 9-11 didn’t do that, so I don’t know what WOULD, TBH. But as a matter of conjecture, theoretically, it’s always a possibility. Public support is always and ever a fickle thing. If a few of these areas become real problems, or ‘regular’ Americans are targeted, vs the “Govt”, people MIGHT get riled up. But they have been pretty careful in doing that, so far, because surely, if dumbass Me can figure that out, they surely have, as well.
It’s basically Apex Predator Hunting. They want to take us, but they STILL can’t spook us openly, or risk us turning and doing mortal damage to their cause.
Solution, I don’t know. Liquor and Whores have been suggested, Westernise them to the point the forget all that jihad nonsense. Also theoretically possible, hahaha, tho unlikely. :wink:

2 Likes

So, how about - out of compassion for Muslims, let’s get rid of them now! Just kidding…

3 Likes

It wouldn’t take much, believe me. I learned to take deadly threats seriously, in the Military. Funny how that works… :wink:

2 Likes

Yes, if 9/11 didn’t do it, I don’t know what will, either…

3 Likes