Is "Freedom of Religion" an Unconditional American Gaurantee?

Osama bin Laden

On this day when we recall the brutal attacks against New York City, Washington D.C. and America, I would like to stop and consider who it is we are fighting, and what our responsibilities are in that fight. To do so, we need to address an underlying assumption of American thought that is misconstrued by many both in America and in the rest of the world.

"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."

*****

"Democracy; hypocrisy" - Principle of Jihadi Philosophy

*****

I remember watching Muslims Against Jihad, and being amused by the effeminate Imam with the chubby little fingers making a slight sweep with his hand as he said "democracy; hypocrisy". I was struck that many of the same accusations that have been levelled against "Neo-cons" - they're chickenhawks, won't fight but get others to do it for them, ad nauseum - could have been levelled against the tinny pitched little hate-monger who avidly recruited young men to blow themselves up, while going home to his wife and kids, and never once contemplating his own demise in Allah's "Jihad." And I was struck that he had taken a principal tenant of some libertarian thought and twisted it around the frame of one of the sickest cults in the world today.

His ignorance of American thought is matched in many corners of America today. Thanks to a shallow and indifferent educational system, many of the founding ideas of American society are brushed onto the minds of kids in broad, messy strokes. The Bill of Rights, a bitterly contested (more about that contest later) document, requires laserlike precision to understand, and it isn't a document set forth as a cover-all, but a foundation for societal function. So when a proponent of mass murder cites an idea that runs contrary to a foundational idea, we should be careful to unpack the idea for all who are equally ignorant of its significance.

It has been understood culturally, and reinforced in the law, that all American freedoms come with requisite social responsibility. The first sentence in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution, deals directly with the freedom of speech. That has since been expanded to include "expression," such as burning flags or making acts of protest. There are, however, reasonable limits to that expression. One cannot use free speech as a defense when lives are endangered by one's speech. The old cliche of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is useful to understand this.

By equal measures of understanding, freedom to practice a religion is contingent upon that religion functioning within the construct of an open and liberal (in the classical use of the word) society. Few (I only use the word "Few" because I'm certain the ACLU is still open for business and I'm not certain how they'd argue this) Americans would argue for the freedom of Aztecs to perform ritual human sacrifice on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. That sounds like hyperbole, but when one considers that Jihadis are, in fact and in deed, perpetuating ritual human sacrifice in the name of their religion, the analogy makes more sense.

The conclusion that begs to be drawn is that socially unacceptable ideas and thought processes, like committing mass murder and suicide for god, are not protected by the United States' Constitution.

Which brings us to Islam. Is this religion protected under the Bill of Rights? This is where we come back to the original dispute about the Bill of Rights. The founders were torn on adding it. Many felt that explicitly cataloging rights would lead to government excess where other rights were not listed. Other founders felt that a list would lead to confusion.

In the end the Bill of Rights was added, with the ability of future generations to amend the Constituion as necessary, but the Supreme Court - responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Constitution - has often leaned heavily on a tradition of Common Law handed down to us from our English forebears. Under Common Law, societal standards are weighed against individual rights and ambitions to determine whether or not a certain behavior is protected. The decisions that the Court makes often impedes a religion in specific beliefs.

For instance, the Mormon Church, first labelled a cult by more Orthodox thinkers, was forced to abandon polygamy in favor of monogamy, lest the Church run afoul of the law. That's a major example, but I could add many more. David Koresh and his followers were collecting an arsenal for the Apocalypse, but Janet Reno decided that, failing a parting of the clouds and a return of Christ, the Branch Davidians led by Koresh would need to surrender their arms. A bloodbath ensued.

Obviously, a religious expression with an Uzi Mac 10 is not protected by the constitution. Jim Jones took far too many people with him to Guyana, after his religious expression lost its protection under the law. Both could have legitimately argued that they were, in fact and through reams of testimony, expressing their own unique religious beliefs. Neither were ultimately protected by the law.

If Muslims in America allow their mosques to be subverted for use by the messengers of hate that would commit ritual human sacrifice to appease the Jihadis' blood god, will those Muslims be protected under the constitution? Of course not. As has been said many times before, the Constitution, unlike a Jihadi ritual ceremony, is not a suicide pact.

We owe neither protection, nor respect, to those who would allow the sanctuaries of their religions to be turned into bully pulpits for megalomaniacal butchers.

This does not mean that all Muslims embrace Jihad. The world has not, as yet, produced that many embiciles. But Muslims, like any other religion, have a societal responsibility to shun and report those who would subvert their religion for murder and mayhem.

And as for the fat-fingered effeminate Imam who lectures about hipocrisy? I haven't seen him in an airport with a bomb belt on his waist. Who's the hypocrite? He knows, and so do freedom loving people everywhere.

We embrace peaceful people, and we love transcendent religion - more so than any nation in history. But we won't allow schoolyard bullies to highjack a concept in the name of their impotent and meaningless god(s). To do so would dishonor a tradition of religious plurality that we hold sacred.

They may yet accomplish even more brutal attacks, but they can't hide behind religion. We won't let them. We never have.