Balancing the first amendment…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment impacts several current hot-button controversies:

• The right of a religion to construct a mosque
• The right of a seditious political ideology to build a mosque
• The right to protest the construction of a mosque
• The right to burn books, even those of a “religion”
• The right to protest the burning of books

The key to each of these “rights” is balance.  What is a “religion?”  What is protected speech?  Are there limits to these rights and protections?

When a religion, like Islam, contains among its doctrinal tenants the coercion of others to submit to particular beliefs or actions, it ceases being a religion and becomes a political ideology.  This coercion/submission principle is manifest in the orthodox teachings of Mohammad which has become Islam’s predominant world view and the heart of Islam’s Sharia legal system.

Is the practice of any political ideology always protected?  No.  Not when the political ideology becomes subversive, seditious, or treasonous.  When the exercise of speech or assembly is for the purpose of undermining our constitution and freedoms, the very heart of our national identity, such actions are no longer subject to protections.

This is why I question the alleged “protected right” of Islam to construct mosques, not just at ground zero, but anywhere in the United States.  Islam itself, not just “radical Islam, at its core, is a coercive ideology that requires submission, not merely by those who call themselves Muslim, but by everyone, believer or not.  Islam’s ideology is not different enough from Nazi fascism for such constitutional protections to be applied to it.

Consequently, we have the right and the DUTY to question and protest the establishment of new mosques, not just at ground zero, but anywhere they a proposed.  Moderate-appearing Muslim Imam sponsors of most mosques have been shown to have connections with individuals and organizations that have vowed to kill Americans overseas or remake the United States into an Islamic culture.  Isn’t that treasonous?  Or is the concept of “treason” out of vogue and now, for some unknown reason, impossible to commit?  Have we evolved so far that actions to protect our nation from destruction from within are no longer condoned?

Mein Kampf (translated “my struggle”) is the Nazi version of the Islamic Qur’an.  Guess what the word “jihad” means?  Struggle!  The great majority of the 164 references to jihad in the Qur’an use that term to refer to a military expedition, fighting, or distributing war spoils.  There are nearly 200 references to jihad in the  hadith (the sayings and actions of Muhammad) and all assume that jihad means warfare.  The Jihad as “inner struggle” propaganda fed to the media is a deception.  The common term “struggle” as used by the Nazi’s and by Islam is no coincidence.  Islam was an ally and cheer leader of the actions of the Third Reich.

Book burning is a protected right.  Most do not agree with actually doing it.  Might it incite Muslims?  You bet.  But so doesn’t depicting Muhammad as a teddy bear, the existence of Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues, and the concepts of “freedom” and “liberty.”  There is a point where we will need to stand up and say “no more.”  Will it be at the point of identifying the Qur’an as a seditious book, or at the point of a sword when we are attempting to exercise our formerly free speech.

And yes, the right to protest the burning of books still exists.