Friday, June 15, 2007

A New Amendment to the Constitution: Re: Islam


A poster at Jihad Watch (who goes by the name “robscottw”) posted there today (June 15, 2007) an interesting proposal:

“A Proposed Constitutional Amendment: Background and justification to Amendment 28”.

I now reproduce it here. My additions will be in brackets and blue font, while my suggested corrections will appear after the poster’s word in CAPS and in brackets (in black font). (At the end of the presentation, I will add my concluding comments.)

Here is the proposed Amendment:

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior [or equal] to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will [SHOULD] [in time before the Last Days] dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia [and Indonesia] actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that [wherever possible] they implement violent [DELETE “violent” PER FOLLOWING CORRECTIVE] jihad (holy war [SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE THAT INCLUDES MILITARY AND OTHER SMALLER-SCALE TYPES OF VIOLENCE]) against those unwilling to convert or submit to Islam, including by [AND ALSO INCLUDING] deception and subversion of existing institutions [and campaigns of demographic conquest by means of immigration and using their women as ‘baby factories’];

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, [and a number of terrorist plots to kill Americans have been foiled after 911] and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

[Whereas many of the above-mentioned representatives of Islam have also declared jihad (war) on many other regions of the world (including the Philippines, Southeast Asia, India, the Balkans, Spain and significant parts of Africa) which together and individually constitute ongoing partners of America in its geopolitical and economic interconnection with the rest of the world;]

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of [expansionist] Islam [which includes the imperatives of jihad and of the superiority of Sharia over all non-Muslim systems of law];

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally [FUNDAMENTALLY] in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech [EXCIZE THE WORD “SPEECH”—IF NEED BE, A SEPARATE PROVISION (LET ALONE A SEPARATE AMENDMENT) WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF THE OFFENSIVE AND DANGEROUS NATURE OF ISLAMIC SPEECH, WHICH PERHAPS CAN BE SUBSUMED UNDER THE RUBRIC OF “TREASON” AND “SEDITION”].

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world [and as it would be imprudent given the nature and scope of the threat presented by these representatives of Islam—whom we have rationally determined cannot be sufficiently distinguished by those representatives of Islam who seem harmless—], Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in mosques, schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction [be quantitatively and qualitatively balanced to] to include [alternative points of view bearing on the] discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on [STRUGGLE AGAINST] [liberal,] democratic and other non-Islamic values.

[Note: The following provision bears upon the questionable inclusion of “speech” as noted above and falls under our objections as noted above]

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress.

[Note: The following, however, relates to violent action and support of same, therefore falling outside the problem of “speech” and our objections to that]

Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III. [Note: this allowance touches on our objections to the category of “speech” otherwise apparently ignored by this Amendment.]

Concluding Comments:

Of course, such an Amendment should be scrupulously footnoted with multiple sources to back up every one of its claims.


This Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America pertains only to the USA, of course. Something similar should also be instituted throughout the West.

This kind of Amendment, while dearly exigent in our time, remains currently a pipe dream, because of Political Correctness. However, its wording and deference to existing Constitutional process does garner it some incremental advantage—at least to put the idea near the table of public discussion, if not on it, where it belongs.

Why is not Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch lending his support to this? This is not the first time that, in my experience of perusing the comments sections of Jihad Watch, this particular poster, “robscottw”, has posted this interesting proposal on Jihad Watch.


7 comments:

Nobody said...

I don't recall this proposal appearing on earlier occasions, but I do endorse this fully, including your editorial suggestions. As we all know, no politician will touch this with a 10 mile long bargepole, so the best approach to getting such a proposal off would be to pick a state where it's most likely to have popular support (maybe OK, AL or UT) as well as unlikely to be overturned by a Federal or State Court (e.g. Ninth Circus Court jurisdiction wouldn't apply). Get the requisite number of signatures for this proposition to be on the ballot, and put it on there.

The beauty of such an approach would be that unlike in the case of CAIR lawsuits, where they retreat whenever discovery issues threaten to expose uglier aspects of their dealings, in this case, pro-Islamic groups have no choice but to either confront the contents of this proposition, or risk allowing Islam to become illegal in the state in question. Also, assuming that none of the politicians support it, the media will be pretty much attacking very obscure people - I wouldn't suggest that even JW associate with it. Even if there were next to no Muslims in the given state, CAIR would be loath to allow this to happen. So that would pretty much force a campaign, with pro-Islamic groups having to deny the assertions of the propositions, thereby inviting fence-sitters to verify them for themselves (granted that some PC types may swallow everything that the Mohammedans have to offer - hook, line and sinker), and put Islam under the sort of scrutiny that all of OPEC's billions couldn't snuff out. Not to mention that some talk shows - like Savage - are now questioning whether Islam deserves to be recognized as a religion: Savage, for instance, referenced an article by David Hollins in FaithFreedom, that takes certain statements from Mein Kamph, and compares them with Quranic verses, as well as certain hadiths from Bukhari and statements from Ibn Ishaq.

Finally, at the ballot box, let's say it succeeds (after all, the launching pad from where this was born was carefully chosen), and gets challenged in court. Hopefully, it won't get overturned by the state court in question, and may have to make its way up to SCOTUS. Now, assuming it is kicked up that far, the same scrutiny that was there during the election would be repeated during the court hearings. Now, while a lot of it may be under the radar - how many closely follow court cases? - chances are more likely than not that both the referandum itself, as well as the court hearings would be accompanied by major Muslim demonstrations as seen during the Danish cartoons: that alone will ensure that the story gets front page coverage. Finally, even if SCOTUS disagrees with it and turns it down, the damage that would have been done to Islam by such a chain of events would force a retreat of Muslims on everything - from dressing up as Muslims in school to footbasins in Minneapolis and Phoenix airports.

Only problem - the petitioners of such a move would have to be pretty brave, since they would be inviting death threats by doing this. Maybe some people well armed could try this.

Erich said...

Nobody,

"I don't recall this proposal appearing on earlier occasions,"

Yeah -- on at least two prior occasions, on two prior separate threads, I saw this.

"the best approach to getting such a proposal off would be to pick a state where it's most likely to have popular support (maybe OK, AL or UT) as well as unlikely to be overturned by a Federal or State Court (e.g. Ninth Circus Court jurisdiction wouldn't apply)."

Forgive my ignorance, but you mean have an individual state pass a Resolution that amends the State constitution, which of course is not the Federal constitution. Of course, given the obstacles of PC, only extremely laborious and incremental baby steps would be feasible, and before an individual or group of people would stand a chance of getting such a Resolution on the table within the context of a single state, there would have to be lots of PR, which means lots of work, lots of social networking, individuals with charisma, lots of money, access to local media, etc.

"in this case, pro-Islamic groups have no choice but to either confront the contents of this proposition, or risk allowing Islam to become illegal in the state in question."

That's where the scrupulous footnoting of the Amendment provisions becomes important: also, something I didn't mention in my main essay, some of the wording of some of the provisions is rather vague -- i.e. some of the condemnation are rather vague, so in anticipation of challenges from Muslims (and from PC apologists or defenders of Muslims), some of the wording of the Amendment would have to be tightened up then scrupulously foonoted. What we are talking about may -- at least in part -- amount to the kind of labor that we found necessary for the anti-Islamic Booklet (with which I have had, as you know, important disagreements in style and content).

And your other observations I would more or less agree with, and would unpack their implication, to wit: even if a campaign to try to realize an Amendment like this (in one, or several states) has no ultimate chance of succeeding, the sheer process itself and all the resistance and media coverage it might entail would provide a good way to get the underlying issue on the public table.

Ironically, I don't buy the central premise of this Amendment: on a purely descriptive level in terms of social science, it seems silly to deny that Islam is a religion, since such a denial entails the silly assertion that all religions must be good. But because the category of "religion" is fraught with Constitutional problems -- and furthermore when it is a Third World religion and a millennial one, it becomes endowed in our PC age with even more implicit protections.

Nobody said...

Erich

I agree that Islam is a religion under the dictionary sense of the word, but then, so are a lot of things: love of particular Computer platforms, such as Unix or Windows, have attracted a fervor by their users/advocates, and qualifies them too for the label of 'religion' which is a school of thought. There are those who claim that Darwinism is a religion, and Communism too has been defined as a religion, given the fanaticism with which it was followed in Mao's China and Brezhnev's USSR.

But those aren't what the 1st Amendment aludes to when they talk about Congress making no law that establishes any State religion. In the Constitution, the way it's written, the framers obviously had in mind mainstream religions, such as Christianity (and its various derivatives, like Puritans, Quakers, et al) and Judaism(?); they certainly weren't thinking of non-'religious' ideologies, and I don't know that they were even thinking cults. However, Islam does have the recognition as a religion - albeit, as many know, an evil one. What Rob Scott (?) seemed to be doing was to propose an amendment that would exlude Islam from the definition of religions, as applicable to the amendment. Aside from that, Islam is a religion in the same way that Communism can be described as one.

Nobody said...

Erich

Yeah, I do suggest doing this to a State constitution, where it's a lot more likely to, if not succeed, at least get off the ground. I know it won't have an immediate effect on the federal constitution. But what it will do is set up contradicting laws between the Federal and State constitutions for the given state, and thereby force the issue. I don't believe that such an attempt would be even remotely successful with the Federal constitution, unless something like a few successive nuclear attacks happen, but I do think that this would focus a halogen light on the issue.

scott said...

This is robscottw.

I have sent this proposed amendment to the jihadwatch website but rec'd no indication of interest in pursuing it.

Though Spence and jihad watch is arguably among the best of the anti-islam propenents they obviously haven't gotten to the same point that I have:

namely - Islam CAN'T BE REFORMED and it is so dangerous to our way of life that it justifies my proposed amdendment.

Also, in the minimal interest of PC even Spencer probably can't bring himself to advocate banning an entire relgion. He does seem to think that there can be some sort of reformation movement within Islam.

I believe, otoh, that Islam unlike Christianity does not have within it the teachings that would allow it to be reformed. That is pretty evident since even the so-called moderate Mulsims never address the violent parts of the Koran, instead, they just foolishly claim that violence is not an accepted part of Islam.

So, I see the only road as my amemdment. The alternative is eventuall civil war and possibly genocide on our part. There seems to be no way to deal with an active Muslim minority except through killing them.

Erich said...

scott,

I think you're right about Spencer; and the argument of some of his defenders -- to wit, that he is only adopting a rhetorical stance that he doesn't really believe in order to deflect criticism of himself as a "bigot" -- is rather silly, seeing that Spencer is already vilified as a "bigot" and worse, so he is either being rather stupid and wasting his time mincing words, or he they are wrong and he really does harbor PC hopes for a reformable Islam.

Such a re-definition of Islam upon which your Amendment is predicated may only develop, tragically, after a sufficiently large and globally disparate series of horrible attacks by Muslims in the coming decades. It would be nice if the West could wake up before that amount of carnage occurs, but given the continuing stubbornness & blindness of PC as I see it, I don't hold out much hope for that.

Ben said...

I first learned of the proposed amendment through a post on Jihadchat. I followed up the link and read the whole thing at Pedestrian Infidel. I have since mentioned it in other fora and blogs.

I don't believe that local action will work. It would certainly be held unconstitutional.

I agree that its a fat chance proposition in the present pc climate. It is, however, an excellent vehicle for promoting education about Islam.

I do not consider Islam to be a religion. Islam is a continuing criminal enterprise which wears a thin veil of false faith as a troop motivator and camouflage. Its purpose is mercenary, not spiritual and its practice is malevolent, not benign.

Islam sanctifies and mandates conquest, genocide and terrorism. I say to Hell with it!

I am willing to participate in the process of writing and posting an on line petition to promote the amendment proposal. Is anyone willing to promote and publish the petition?

I spent several days writing the Congress Debate Koran Petition, and a great deal of time promoting it. After two years, it has only 1006 signatures.

BTW, I have a 14 part series on Islam: Know Thine Enemy, and a continuing Myth vs. Fact series which I am willing to share. Send a pm at Jihadchat if you are interested.