Quite a lot, but we probably won’t.
I agree that soft jihad is real and very dangerous. One only has to look to Europe and the U.K. to see what it can accomplish. The question, then, is what’s to be done? The only thing I can see that would be constitutional would be to limit or prohibit immigration of Muslims, but even Republicans wouldn’t do it. So what’s left, beyond bending over and kissing our tuchuses goodbye?
Tom graciously consented to the posting of his comment here.
Here a few of the things we could do if we hope to leave the path now followed by Europe and the U.K. before it becomes too late for us. There are probably many more steps that we could take and perhaps suggestions will be posted in comments. None are likely to be taken while “we” have a President who appears to favor Islam above all other religions.
Our State and Federal courts should not, and do not, decide cases on the bases of Christian or Jewish law. To the extent that they decide cases on the basis of Islamic law, they shouldn’t.
Disputes over the laws of various religious traditions have occasionally made their way into U.S. civil courts, but the Supreme Court consistently has ruled that judges and other government officials may not interpret religious doctrine or rule on theological matters.5 In such cases, civil courts must either defer to the decisions of religious bodies or adjudicate religious disputes based on neutral principles in secular law. For example, in recent years the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has battled in state court with several congregations over control of buildings, property and funds after the congregations voted to join more theologically conservative branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. So far, the cases have been decided in favor of the diocese using contract and real estate law rather than church law.6
Religious, rather than State and Federal, courts deal with religious adjudications; that is their purpose.
Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year.1 In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.
Such proceedings affect the religious, but not the secular, status of those involved. If a divorce, for example, with secular legal consequences is desired, it is necessary to proceed in the appropriate State court under applicable State domestic relations law, not religious law.
Would a State’s prohibition of its courts’ consideration of all religious laws violate the U.S. Constitution? As noted here,
On Thursday, 15 August, US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange struck down an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment (known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.
If the United States are not permitted to have one or more official religions (and they are not, see U.S. Constitution, First Amendment), it is probably unconstitutional for State and Federal courts to distinguish among the laws (often very different) of various religions by applying the laws of some but not of others. However, in view of the long standing judicial practice of not interpreting or enforcing any religious laws, there should be no constitutional objection were a State to emphasize that practice by codifying it.
This is not to suggest that courts should thereby impair our First Amendment rights to engage in the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court is likely to decide several relevant cases during the coming term. Since, as Justice Ginsburg has stated, the present Supreme Court is one of the most activist ever, it is useless to guess what it might do. However, just as those who objected on religious grounds to serving in the military as combatants were exempted as conscientious objectors, those who object on religious grounds to paying for the abortions of others should not be required to do so. Even the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment has obvious limits: “religious exercises” such as beheading those of different or no faith, consummating religious marriage ceremonies with very young girls and wife beating are not and should not be countenanced.
Repeal all “hate crime” laws.
Whether a criminal act was precipitated by hatred may well be relevant to motive, to whether the act was intentional and to who, if anyone, incited it. However, hatred per se should not form the basis for a separate offense. Presently, only some criminal offenses precipitated by hatred, racial or otherwise, are prosecuted as hate crimes. None should be. Thinking “hateful” thoughts should not be a crime even though the actions that flow from such thoughts may be. If the actions themselves are criminal, the perpetrator should be prosecuted under normal criminal law for those actions, not for a hate crime.
Enforce laws against inciting violence.
Some who do not themselves participate in violent crimes incite others to do so. In Britain, an Islamist television channel has been fined $115,00 for airing a broadcast by an Islamist cleric in which he urged followers “to murder anyone who shows disrespect for the Prophet Mohammed.” He concluded his remarks as follows:
One has to choose one’s own method. … No one can be more fortunate than the one who loses his life, wealth and children for the sake of glorifying our beloved Lord [Mohammed] whom Allah praises and protects. I say the aim of establishing Noor TV, and the slogan of the founder of Noor TV, is the protection of the sanctity of Prophet Mohammed. … In the whole world, there should be slaves of Mustafa [Mohammed] everywhere, and disrespectful people should be eliminated. … The mission of our life is to protect the sanctity of our beloved Lord [Mohammed]. May Allah accept us wherever there is a need [to kill a blasphemer]. We are ready and should be ready at all times [to kill a blasphemer]. [Emphasis added.]
Does England have no criminal laws against that sort of incitement to murder? Does the United States have none? How many Islamist clerics in the United States have urged similar conduct but not been prosecuted criminally? Why were no efforts made to prosecute those who urged that George Zimmerman be captured, “dead or alive” well before he had even been charged criminally?
The Reverend Mr. Jackson said “Blacks are under attack.” This “Wanted Dead or Alive” poster appeared at a New Black Panther rally. President Obama, while careful “to voice no opinion on the conduct of the shooter, George Zimmerman, or any legal aspect of the case beyond a call for a thorough investigation,” declared that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Require background checks on all immigrants.
Some immigrants — generally those who seek to immigrate legally — undergo background checks. People who enter the United States legally but temporarily and not to become permanent residents are not always subject to adequate scrutiny. The Boston bombers and the flight students who brought us the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were not scrutinized adequately.
Many more enter illegally than enter legally and are not subject to background or other checks. For that if for no other reason (and there are many additional reasons), we should halt illegal immigration rather than encourage it as does the Obama Administration. Those who commit criminal offenses, at least offenses chargeable as felonies, should be deported as expeditiously as possible and should they reenter the country illegally they should be deported immediately. If they come back again, they should be held without bail pending trial and, upon conviction, jailed (at hard labor) for a long time. A policy of doing that should be well publicized.
Terminate all welfare benefits for illegals.
Legal immigrants are generally required, prior to entry, to demonstrate that they probably have access to sufficient resources not to require welfare. That is, of course, not the case with those who enter illegally; indeed, they are officially encouraged to come and get “their” welfare benefits. I wrote here that
our southern border through which most illegals enter is poorly controlled and welfare benefits — advertised by “our” Federal government with help from the Mexican government — are available for little more than the asking to those who enter illegally.
Some of Islamist disposition are now entering illegally though our southern borders and little is being done to identify them.
In the various efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system, often overlooked in the debate is its impact on national security. The recent communications intercept of al Qaeda’s intent to conduct a terrorist attack or series of attacks against U.S. facilities in the Middle East and North Africa should also remind us of the likelihood of terrorist cells on American soil.
It is an acknowledged fact that since we have refused to secure our borders, we have facilitated the transit and infiltration of al Qaeda affiliated terrorists and narco-terrorists who are now living illegally in the United States. . . .
It should be equally disturbing that the Obama administration has cavalierly designated aliens — whether legal or illegal — as “customers.” According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, these “customers” are to be “fast-tracked” to “get to yes” on their applications. What this means is that the director has instructed his staff that their job in processing applications is to “get to yes,” no matter the issue. With such a directive, national security issues are obviously ignored or bypassed.
Remove Islamist indoctrination from our schools.
This article at Maggie’s Notebook focuses on Islamist indoctrination in our schools under Common Core. It seems quite unlikely that Islam is or will be presented objectively. It is too long to paraphrase or even to summarize here, so please read the entire article. It is frightening and the efforts appear to be subtle, insidious and to have the full support of the Obama Administration.
One last idea: Send the Obamas on more vacations.
This suggestion is probably the least likely of all to be implemented. However, I have asked the renowned law firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe to work on the case pro bono and they have agreed to get to work as soon as they can, subject to other
more remunerative commitments.
The Obamas need their fair share of vacations and don’t get it, so they need more. Please read the linked article; it seems almost factual and is quite amusing. Lengthy adventure vacations — only one, lasting three hundred and sixty-five days, each year — would be a bit more than they get now, a good thing for them and for the nation. Here are a few superb destinations for their adventure travel. There are doubtless others.
They might enjoy the musical opportunities, such as this:
If When they return, other grand adventure opportunities must be made immediately available for them to enjoy. Their reluctance further to burden United States taxpayers with the modest costs incurred — although widely applauded as further evidence of their humility and frugality — should otherwise be ignored. Despite any well intended reticence, they must go.