So we must trample on the Constitution to save it?
You tell me. What would you propose, aside from enforcing our secular law over their religious law, and severely limiting the number of islamic immigrants?
You see, there is a parallel seldom discussed in American History. The Maryland Colony was founded by Catholics on the premise of freedom of religion (1632). Land grants were made by the English Crown, Manors established, and the Catholic Church was a presence from day one. However, freedom of religion meant just that, and anyone was allowed in and to practice their religion. Within 100 years there was the Protestant Reformation, and Catholic Priests were being hunted down and hanged. One sold himself to one of my ancestors, becoming a slave and property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Common Law. That saved his life. He bought his freedom back after things settled down. The rules guaranteeing freedom were eventually used as a means to suppress it.
If we let Islam, under the guise of religious freedom, run roughshod over secular law, we will have no secular law, only Sharia.
Another example: In San Francisco, a new disease had been identified. It was traced to a contagion nexus, the bathhouses that were popular gathering places for homosexuals. It was originally named GRID (for Gay Related Immune Disorder, later renamed as AIDS for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Doctors wanted to shut down the bathhouses as a public health measure, but homosexuals successfully lobbied against that on the basis of their first amendment right to free assembly and on the basis that to do so would be discrimination. The Constitution would have survived. Over half a million people have not, so far, and 1.3 million live today with the disease, ultimately a death sentence, barring a cure, and those numbers just in the US.
Not only would shutting down those bathhouses slowed the spread of a deadly disease early on while it was still being sorted out medically, the whole concept of suing on a basis of discrimination for a nonreligious choice in lifestyle would have been weakened, if not preempted. Look at society today, where the fallout from that choice is ongoing, culturally, and where now 1.3 million Americans have the disease and will cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars in health care during their lifetimes and tell me whether you think the right choice was made.
But now, we're not talking about control of a colony under English Law, nor about the spread of a deadly disease, one which involves making choices (as a rule) to catch, we're talking about all the marbles.
We have let others come here from other totalitarian regimes, brutal regimes, but they are anxious to shed the totalitarianism and the brutality. Despite having shed the trimmings of the oppression of living under an Islamic regime, American Muslims not only embrace that totalitarian form of theocracy, they are trying to impose it on us in subtle ways, claiming a Constitutional Right to do so, and in ways people here don't even recognize.
Have your kid recite the Shahada as part of a class project? They have just witnessed for Allah--the first of the five pillars of Islam, a religious event, one that makes them Muslim. It is a
prayer declaring Allah as 'god' and Muhammed his prophet. They have not witnessed for Jesus, not for YHWH, that isn't allowed!
Because of the ability to cross claim Islam as a "culture", a "religion", and a form of government, there is no distinction and our Constitution will be used against us. Define Islam as one or the other or the other, and make it bend to our secular laws to conform to our Constitution (you can't). Honor killings, Sharia courts, multiple wives (the Mormons weren't allowed this, why the Muslims?) are just some of the incompatibilities. No, they aren't "just like us" in that seminal regard. What other religion encourages lying?
While all humans have certain unifying characteristics, and similar desires, that does not make us all the same. It isn't bigotry, it is a knowledge of salient differences which are incompatible. When I see a woman in Wal-Mart (yes, even in ND) wrapped up tighter than a nun, with two male escorts, one never more than arms length away, I know what I am seeing. I know it is a religious requirement that she be escorted thus, otherwise a male relative would be required under Sharia law to kill her for impugning the family honor.
Anyone else's wives and daughters can still go there and shop without such attendants, for now, anyway.
Learn about that culture/religion/form of government now, and you will most likely not want it here. Failure to stop that, however will only guarantee living under it, and learning about it anyway.
