"The US Department of Justice's civil rights division filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the New York Department of Correctional Services alleging the city's prisons discriminated against Muslim officers by barring them from wearing visible symbols of their faith on the job.The suit was filed Thursday in Manhattan on behalf of Abdus Samad N. Haqq, a prison guard from Brooklyn who was ordered in 2005 to stop wearing a kufi - a knitted skullcap that carries religious significance for many Muslim men - while at work.
'Americans are not required to abandon their religious beliefs when they report for work,' said Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim in a statement announcing the lawsuit." -- from this article
The right to "free exercise" of religion is not absolute. But the first question might be the one that the Supreme Court has never dared to discuss: what constitutes a "religion" for First Amendment purposes? Islam is a belief-system with many followers -- far more than David Koresh had, or that Koolaid man who had so many of his truest believers killed in their Guyana redoubt. Does that mean it is not a "cult"? Does it exhibit any of the features of a "cult"? For example, does a belief-system that punishes by death those who wish to leave it constitute a “cult”? In other words, is a belief-system a “cult” if it does not allow for the free exercise of religion or of conscience, either by those who through no fault of their own were born into it or by those who, perhaps out of a colossal misunderstanding or Serial Search for Meaning Bus that happened to make a stop at "Islam" where someone hastily got off, then found he (or she) was not allowed to get back on that bus the next time it happened to be passing through?
This belief-system is not merely about the worship of some deity, single or plural. It also contains an entire and comprehensive system for the Regulation of Life, and for the Explanation of the Universe. Those may be unpleasant, but they are not necessarily direct threats to Unbelievers. It also contains a geopolitical system which is based on the perceived and inculcated division of the world between Believers and Infidels (that is, all non-Muslims), between the lands controlled by the former, Dar al-Islam, and the lands still controlled by the Infidels, Dar al-Harb (the House of War). That war is made necessary by the failure of those Infidels to allow the "Peace" of Islam to descend, as it ultimately must, over all the world. This belief-system mandates as a duty participation in the Jihad (struggle) to remove all obstacles everywhere, put up by Infidels, to the natural spread of Islam -- until everywhere Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. Muhammad said it for all time: "Islam is to dominate, and is not to be dominated."
When the First Amendment became essentially part of the Constitution, along with the rest of what is often referred to as the Bill of Rights, back in 1791, the Framers never contemplated Islam as a presence in this country. It made no sense. Muslims could not themselves endure living under the rule of non-Muslims. It was unthinkable that agents or adherents of Islam, ever since its birth the historic enemy of Western Christendom and in its own essence a belief-system unalterably opposed to the essence of Western Civilization, with its emphasis on the individual, and the rights of that individual, and on mental freedom, and free artistic expression, and on so much else that is inimical to Islam, would come here in large numbers. Few could have imagined Muslims in this country, attempting to undermine, as they do everywhere in what they call the Bilad al-kufr, the Land of Unbelief or Lands of the Infidels, the legal and political and moral foundations and institutions that embody them.
The generally accepted view of Islam -- the one that not only was to be found in the established churches, but in the newer ones, and not only in the churches but in the views of the deists and freethinkers -- by Spinoza, Hume, John Wesley, as later by Mill, and Tocqueville, was best articulated by that great statesman, the learned man, John Quincy Adams. Google "John Quincy Adams" and "Islam" for his analysis. What strikes one is that there was a keen understanding of Islam in the earliest days of the American Republic, but since the 1920s, more or less, there has been a steady falling off -- possibly as the result of a decline in the level of intelligence in our political class and the abdication of responsibility by a cultural elite that has itself now been forcibly disbanded by the levelling influences that, for some reason, do noting about growing banana-republic levels of economic inequality that stagger and dismay, but channel all the levelling impulses into the area where they should never have a place -- in the fields of education, art, and culture. The current crew of "taking-a-leadership-role" leaders exhibit all this, as does Bush with his shallow and ignorant messianism -- bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" all over the Middle East, with the thermostat finally turned down from hot to temperature levels a little more acceptably laodicean in Tarbaby Iraq.
But even if we are forced for American Constitutional purposes to accept the notion that the belief-system of Islam is a "religion," even as we never let up in challenging the basis for that characterization, we need not conclude that the Free Exercise clause is absolute and that it can permit Muslims to refuse to abide by all sorts of rules that are deemed necessary.
A series of cases has upheld as constitutional various infringements on the Free Exercise of religion. In Goldman v. Weinberger, for example, the ban in the Air Force on pilots wearing certain headgear -- in this case, a yarmulke or kippah -- was upheld, for the Air Force rule was demonstrated to make sense in furtherance of an important state interest. In Employment Division v. Smith, the claim that the smoking of peyote was part of a religious ritual, and could not be subject to the law, was denied because the law itself met a new test -- the "rule of general applicability."
There have been more recent statutes, passed by those who wish to limit the scope of what they see as government infringement on Free Exercise, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and something known as RLUIPA, the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" -- but here I don't have the time to investigate and find out the current tests employed. But surely, in prisons, the state has a large claim to be able to regulate, for security reasons, all kinds of things.
But the statement by Wan J. Kim that "Americans are not required to abandon their religious beliefs when they report to work" is a false statement of the case. No guard is being required to "abandon" his beliefs. Unlike in Islam, in this country there really is "no compulsion in religion." But when the Air Force says that a kippah may not be worn, or for that matter a Sikh turban, it is not requiring Jewish or Sikh pilots to "abandon their religious beliefs." We know perfectly well that beliefs can be maintained, but that certain practices -- for example, any religion that had sacrifice of children, or vestal virgins deliberately divested, or any variant on the burnt-offering problem, would not be permitted to continue, even though those who believe in them would not, in being forced to end such practices, have been forced to "abandon their religious beliefs."
The remark by Wan Kim was silly and dangerous. There are places, above all others, where the state can justify its putting limits, not on beliefs, but on certain practices including outward and visible signs of one's adherence to this or that belief-system: in the military and in prisons, certainly.
The obvious self-identification of a guard as a Muslim might intimidate or worry non-Muslim prisoners. Similarly, it might be a signal to Muslim prisoners that they may be favored by this fellow member of the umma al-islamiyya, who has been taught that his loyalty is owed entirely to fellow members of that umma, and not to the Infidel nation-state. But American prisons cannot have guards who signal such loyalties to the prisoners. Furthermore, in prisons there is a well-financed and carefully targetted campaign of Da'wa. The evidence for this is overwhelming: this Da'wa is an instrument of Jihad. Such campaigns are taking place in prisons all over North America and Western Europe. There is a special effort made to recruit those deemed, as members of racial or certain ethnic minorities, particularly susceptible to the idea of Islam as the current vehicle of protest, or of alienation, or of hatred, of the "System."
If guards were allowed to parade their adherence to Islam, it is possible that some of the prisoners, considering whether to convert to Islam, might think that would be a way to please those guards or to win favors that they are unlikely to win from non-Muslim guards, who show no special loyalty to "Christian" or other prisoners, but are just doing their job. It is this aspect that is perhaps most worrisome: the outward display by guards of their belonging to the umma may support those campaigns of Da'wa in prisons --and this must not be permitted.
You cant expect to have any kind of security if a muslims in in the chain ,A muslim cannot uphold the oath they affirm.
Not to protect and serve not to uphold the constitution.
Before the end, the West is going to need to confront this question.
The Constitution rightfully restricts the ability of government to discriminate based on religious affiliation. Recent trends on the case law have not been good (e.g. recognizing the Wiccans as a religion) in the context of trying to deny Muslims First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protection.
Even if the PC culture is soundly defeated (the best I think we can really hope for is some push back), our very Constitution and established legal precedents is going to handcuff our efforts.
In any case a firemen who refuses to shave his beard might decide to not venture into a Church or synagogue or Christian school And a muslims guard cannot be trusted to come to the aid of a down atheist being knifed behind bars by a devout muslim.,
Total exclusion of muslims from society is something that should be considered since their sensitivities are so crippling
For goodness sake, most jobs have some sort of uniform requirement, whether it's something specific or an expectation of a suit and tie.
We've had cases of muslim fireman whining because they can't grow beards despite the reasonable observation that they impede the seal preventing smoke when putting on breathing apparatus.
Once again, it's not the Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists etc.
But the first question might be the one that the Supreme Court has never dared to discuss: what constitutes a "religion"
Thank you for bringing this up.
How many people cannot see the all out orchestarted assualt on our free and open legal/social system? Even if the news glosses over information. It doesn't take much forethought to arrive at the conclusion that the system is under assault. Muslims are overtly using our social and legal system against us.
Cases in point during the last few weeks:
Imam/US Airways incident
Target employees in Minneapolis/StP refusing to handle pork products.
Taxicab drivers/MStP Transit Authority
Canadian hijab/soccer incident
and others...
The list is long. It is happening in Europe, the U.S., and Canada on an ever increasing scale. Almost all public institutions, and some private, are working at capacity trying to employ some kind of Islamic sensitivity training. All fear lawsuits. Many are threatened with the same. See the icidents of Ibrahim "the toad" Hooper at every opportunity. He's a real busy brother in the Jihad. These are not isolated incidents of "monkeys learning to wash coconuts". These incidents are orchestrated from central locations. These locations are the centers of Islam worship. The mosques and their directors are the key. Islam must be removed from the definition of "a religion".
Because of its very nature, I would posit that Islam does not fall under the definition of religion laid out by the founding fathers. If one takes into account Westerm philosophical thinking about the definition of religion over the last 275 years, Islam is not a religion. Just as Fitzgerald points out, it is more a cult or dogma. It could be more catogorized much like what the original Marxist/Communist envisioned as their utopic dream.
Not only do muslims refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a non-muslims government/authority, but one can only imagine how they feel about muslims being held prisoner by "infidels."
The Koolaid guy in Guyana was, I think, Jim Jones.
The cult of Islam also seems to display the characteristics of a virus.
A highly lethal one.
However it is a belief system, whatever else it is, and the best way to counter a belief system?
Surely to plainly point out it's impossibility and ludicrousness. Many Muslims have never really examined the tenets of their belief, but of those who do, many must surely see the fallacies therein. So reverse dawa; shout out the absurdities, nail the lies. Never mind the whines of injured piety, we can't afford to waste time being respectful.
Something that doesn't get discussed much are the philosophical and logical underpinnings of the Bill of Rights.
This is a large and deep subject with which I will only claim a small familiarity.
But the way this goes, I believe, is that the rights enumerated in the Bill are logically dependent on each other, which is to say that some imply others. And those that imply others have logical precedence.
I am always tempted in this connection to make reference to the Declaration of Independence for its terse phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", even though it stands outside the Bill itself, because I believe it expresses the assumptions implicit in the Bill.
The preeminent right on which all others are based is clearly the right to life. The proof is pretty simple. If you do not have the right to your own life, you can have no other right to anything else, as possesing anything at all (rights or otherwise) depends on being alive. Not much to it.
The rights to think and act as you see fit, not mentioned in the bill, are the necessary consequences, as they are necessary to living a human life. And given that you have the right to your life, they inevitably follow.
The right to free speech follows from your rights to live and think and act. It is meaningless to live and think and act without being able to speak your thoughts. It is a direct application of its precedents.
The right to the free exercise of religion derives in turn from the rights discussed above. Clearly a matter of thinking, acting and expressing youself as you see fit. And is this sense is at best, tertiary.
===========
One logical principle that is critical here, is that an idea cannot contradict the ideas on which it is based.
So there can be no such thing, for example, as a right to murder. A right to murder would have to be based, as all others, on the right to life. Clearly however, if a person has a right to their own life no person can have the right to murder them.
So the idea of a right to murder involves one in an absurd contradiction.
============
Apply these principles to religion and you've got it knocked.
One's right to the free exercise of religion cannot imply principles that contradict the precedent rights on which the right to free exercise of religion is based.
QED.
============
One clear consequence is that believing a religion that condones murder can not be an admissible defence at a murder trial.
To murder is to hang for it. No matter what your allegedly holy book says.
=============
All that said, no matter how you slice it, mohammedanism and mohammedan culture as a religion, or simply as a political ideology, they've got some very basic problems in connection with the rights of man.
Our local muslim brotherhood rep said that islam is a complete way of life: a religion (the final and most perfect one), a culture (eastern) and a POLITICAL SYSTEM (enshrined in the sharia).
The POLITICAL SYSTEM hides under the cloak of the religion. Actually islam is totalitarian theocracy with imperialistic globall goals and and we should inform the media and our public officials that this is the case as often as we can.
For those in the US, was/is the Klan a religion? If it was, that status didn't stop the FBI stomping on it.
Do not the double standards of Islam preclude Islam's being able to become "universalised?"
If there is one standard which favors Muslims, and the other for "the rest" ("the rest" are not to be favoured) -- then, how is it possible to have universal principles applied?
When Islam is applied, I see universal principles being undermined. For example, instead of hiring based on ability or meritocracy, you get hiring based on one's religion (Muslim preference), etc. Such favoritism is deadly for a free and fair and "equal-rights" minded western nation. It introduces corruption and preferences which are "non-meritocracy" based.
The time has come for action and not words, lest this cult become more than a mere nuisance. If it does not classify as a religion, then it is not protected by the constitution. If so, then aren't we bound to outlaw it and sweep it from our polity since it aims at establishing itself as the law of the land, superceeding the documents that we govern ourselves by?
Religious totalitarianism is just as abhorrent as any other kind!
"lest this cult become more than a mere nuisance."
-- from a posting above
"Lest" it "become"?
Many native American rituals involving those that make use of peyote have long been contraband in the US.
Isn't it time Islam and its jihads were added to the list?
Even if the PC culture is soundly defeated (the best I think we can really hope for is some push back), our very Constitution and established legal precedents is going to handcuff our efforts.
Posted by: JSobieski at March 17, 2007 11:41 AM
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
"'Americans are not required to abandon their religious beliefs when they report for work...'"
Hmmm...since when is an article of clothing a "religious belief"?
And inasmuch as a state employee is an agent of government;
And inasmuch as government is prohibited from endorsing or promoting a particular religious belief;
It is fitting that an agent of the government be required to wear a uniform omitting any reference to religion as a condition of employment.
If a Muslim does not wish to conform to this requirement of employment, then he or she should find another, non-governmental, line of work.