You'll thank me later

A typical sentiment from a Jihad Watch reader:

"The United States of America has a long legal tradition where it acknowledges that the government has no business making choices regarding what is and is not a valid interpretation of any religious tradition. The only exception is when a religious interpretation has a major impact on society, as in the example of Mormon polygamy." 

However, this commenter (again, typically) did not draw the logical conclusion -- to exempt Islam from the protections our Constitution affords religions.

Is not, one would ask, Islam precisely an exception to this protection our Constitution affords religions? 

Anyone who has been reading Jihad Watch for a while (and as prodigiously alarming as is the mountain of data warehoused there, there are more mountains of data to add to it, yielding whole mountain ranges of damning data about the problem and danger of Islam, amid mountains more of dots screaming for connection by anyone with half a brain) can see that Islam is the Exception Par Excellence in this regard. What more does a Religion have to be to warrant our recognition that it lies outside the protections afforded by our Constitution? 

The tack which those in the Counter-Jihad tend to take at this juncture in the thought process is to leap to the apodictic claim that "Islam is not a religion!"  Ergo, the logic goes, we don't have to worry about the Constitution protecting it.

While my thoughts about this subject have more recently undergone evolution coming around to this point of view, I see this more as a philosophical/anthropological issue, not necessarily a political/pragmatic one.  The fact is that the West has for centuries, and continues to this day, to regard Islam as a "religion".  We in the CJ (the Counter-Jihad -- soon to be renamed the AIM, the Anti-Islam Movement) have enough on our plate trying to wake up our somnambulist fellow Westerners to the dangers of Islam without adding the extra burden of trying to convince the vast majority of them of a remarkably novel idea that goes against the grain of tradition.  

For the purposes of what we can do to protect ourselves from Islam, we don't need to de-religionize Islam in order to make it vulnerable to the legal exemption from our laws protecting religious liberties; nor do we need to redefine Islam. All we need do is scrape off the layers of whitewash that have accrued by decades of PC MC (with several fresh coats of latex eggshell-white applied post-911) in order to expose the fact that normative mainstream Islam, regardless of whether or not it's also a "religion", lies outside the protections our Western laws afford to religions.

Let's see, Islam mandates:

sedition 

hatred 

supremacism 

expansionism 

a dismantling of all Western liberties and freedoms 

violence in order to pursue the above list;

and, as part and parcel of all of the above: 

the goal of destroying the Constitution (and all non-Islamic laws on earth) to replace it with Islamic Sharia -- a goal not only believed ideologically, but also pursued seditiously, with violence planned, and violence already waged against us.

Indeed, specifically, Islam is the embodiment of a violent/stealth project to violate Article 6 of the Constitution (which of course is the cornerstone of the entire document): 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

This provision, so to speak, "abrogates" anything else in the Constitution by which some apologist weasel (or PC MC-compomised soul with starry eyes) would seek, or claim, to find protection for Islam in the Constitution. 

If we follow Article VI (and we must, according to Article VI itself), the Constitution itself outlaws Islam already. The American brain and its reflexes are just currently lagging behind what its heart and mind long ago solemnly swore to uphold. 

In this regard, not my memory so much as my intelligence was jogged, when I listened to the very good question of an audience member (an ordinary citizen named Ron Thompson, a D.C. lawyer) during the Q-&-A segment of a recent colloquium involving Diana West, Stephen Coughlin, Andrew Bostom and Frank Gaffney.  Ron Thompson's question begins toward the end, at about the 1:21 time mark of the video.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Thompson's question is rhetorical: i.e., it already contains the answer. It will just take, apparently (and tragically), several years -- if not bloody decades, literally and figuratively -- before the rest of the West catches up to think it, and then apply it.

And the extent to which my last paragraph holds may be measured by how many even within the Counter Jihad wring their hands, shake their heads, and with benighted sincerity and anxiety, mouth the inanity like parrots that "well, our hands are tied by the Constitution...what can we do...!?" 

Pish posh. Read the Constitution. Use your noodle. Apply some gumption. 

 And pass the gravy.