The American Culture

Under the U.S. Constitution, Islam and Sharia Law

Are Not a Federal Concern

By Mike Gray

. . . . all non-Christian religions ought to enjoy the presumption of religious freedom . . . the First Amendment does not explicitly protect the Islamic faith, nor does it prohibit it. The First Amendment is simply silent about the issue of Islam.

Thus Islam should enjoy only the liberty it merits, and permission, for example, to build new mosques can be revoked if Islam does in America what Islam does everywhere it exists in the world, which is labor to subvert democracy and impose sharia law. [Emphasis added] — Bryan Fischer

There seems to be widespread ignorance about, or simply a deliberate disregard of, the First Amendment, particularly with respect to the so-called “Establishment Clause”:

. . . . what the First Amendment was all about was simply prohibiting Congress from picking one denomination and making it the official church of the United States, and about protecting all Christian denominations from the intrusion of the federal government.

There was no mention of Islam, no reference to Islam, no effort to protect the free exercise of the Islamic faith.

Since the Founders intended the First Amendment to apply only to Congress (“Congress shall make no law …”), this leaves the states free to do as they wish on matters of religious expression.

It would likely astound the current Department of Justice—which so sedulously “protects” every religion under the sun except Christianity—to learn that the states, and not the federal government, are at perfect liberty to deal with Islam and sharia law as they see fit and without necessary recourse to federal authorities.

The federal Constitution is judicially blind to religion, as stated above; the document prevents the national government from setting up its own church. Otherwise, it’s hands off! The federal government is prohibited from meddling in religion (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) — and except for immigration, which is a congressional responsibility, that’s essentially it:

[It's true that] immigration is a congressional issue. But . . . states have considerable latitude in religious liberty matters, and states are thus free to ban the building of any more mosques within their borders. If states won’t do it, then local planning and zoning commissions can and must do it. And if we understand the Constitution as given to us by the Founders, there is no constitutional impediment in their doing so.

Local governments are well within their rights to protect their citizens from the encroachment of a toxic ideology that will in time threaten religious liberty and equality under the law in their own communities.

Remember that

. . . . states still maintain, in an originalist view, a great deal of latitude in matters of religious expression. They are restrained in this matter only by the strictures of their own state constitutions. From the standpoint of the federal constitution, they remain free, for example, to ban the building of any more mosques in their state, in the interest of societal security and tranquility. They would not be in violation of the federal constitution in doing so, since the First Amendment ties the hands of Congress and Congress alone.

Which also means that if a local community wishes to deny permission to have a mosque built, the locality should not be threatened with action from the federal government, regardless of whether the feds cite the First Amendment as justification for their interference.

Is this a religion — or something else?

A proper understanding of the First Amendment, in fact, precludes any federal action whatsoever. The federal government cannot give permission for, or prevent the building of, any mosque; only states and localities have that power, if their constitutions so provide.

It would be completely unconstitutional for the DOJ to sic federal prosecutors on state legislatures or local zoning boards who might wish to deny permission for building a mosque within their jurisdiction.

Nowadays the federal government behaves as if it’s the sole repository for civic virtue, too often vitiating attempts by state and local governments to exercise their constitutional rights. In this context, for the feds to prosecute localities for denying permission to build mosques would not only result in a violation of their constitutional rights but also be an attempt to enforce religious conformity, something that’s clearly beyond the purview of the First Amendment.

By the same token, it should be obvious how unconstitutional it is for the federal government to attempt to restrict religious practice by banning prayer, creches, and displays of the Ten Commandments anywhere in the United States, at any time and for any reason. Religion is not the proper concern of the national government.

As Bryan Fischer puts it:

. . . . we are at a place where truth about Islam is now considered hate speech, as if criticism and disagreement were by definition expressions of hatred. This demonization of free speech must stop.

Fischer’s article is here

ùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù