11.1 School Prayer and Education About Religion
Preamble: The religious experience of Americans has intrinsic value and deserves to be made part of public education at every level. There is no conflict with the First Amendment when religious observance in public school, including institutions of higher learning, is voluntary and does not interfere with regularly scheduled classes. This assumes reasonable length of any observance, such as prayer, meditation, blessing, or reading scripture. However, along with this privilege goes a responsibility, in any school, to be informed about religion. Indeed, this is crucial in a pluralistic democracy in which millions of people are “communicants” in a large number of religions, and where significant minorities are skeptical about matters of faith or reject religion altogether. Prayer or any other faith observance that simply reflects religious preference or upholds unexamined tradition cannot be said to serve legitimate purposes of education.
Therefore: In all public schools the requirement shall exist for teaching Comparative Religion, including study of points of view critical of religion, and, inasmuch as American culture cannot be understood adequately without it, study of the Bible, that is, the Hebrew Bible, sometimes called the Old Testament, and the New Testament.
This in no way is intended to be devotional in nature; the purpose is to teach about religion and religious traditions, to understand the motivations of believers in terms of psychology and social science, with a grounding in the history of religions, especially the history of religions and unbelief in the United States. Similarly, study of the Bible should be scholarly, albeit age-appropriate, based on honest analysis of meaning not on doctrinal considerations of any kind, shall include study of relevant history, and show how important parts of the book have influenced American values, culture, politics, law, and morality.
So understood: School facilities shall be made available to responsible members of religious groups, to convene meetings either for special occasions such as religious holidays. or for regularly scheduled study, and the like. Agnostics, Atheists, and Humanists shall have the same right. School administrators shall have discretion concerning availability of facilities, and it is assumed they would seek to be fair and equitable. School prayers or other religious observances shall likewise be allowable at times as places made available at the discretion of school administrators, also assuming their desire to be fair and equitable, including consultation with parents or other responsible members of the community. In all cases, attendance at religious observances shall be voluntary.
However: In no case shall special accommodation for any religion be provided. There shall be no prayer rooms, no meditation halls, no special ablutions installations, or anything similar. Moreover, there shall be no exemptions for special “prayer times” or “time off” from school allowed for holidays unless local education boards, or their equivalents, approve such holidays as part of the official school calendar. No accommodation shall be made for customs which are not normative in the local community, regardless of possible appeals by religious groups who do not share consensus American values.
Explanation: The purpose of this Amendment is to encourage thoughtful religious faith, or thoughtful and fair, honest evaluation of religion by its critics. It is, in all cases, meant to encourage students to cultivate healthy philosophies of life. Students should, in the process, come to understand that honest criticism of religion, or particular religious traditions, is a moral and intellectual good, as is respect for religious traditions when such respect is deserved on the merits. While classes cannot determine the truth-value of claims about the hereafter or propositions about the realm of Spirit, it is well within the purview of education to identify aspects of religion (or irreligion) which contribute to social harmony, personal growth, psychological well being, and the like, and which have deleterious effects.
On these grounds it is manifestly clear that not all religions are equal, some include values which are opposed to the values enshrined in the US Constitution, and it is the responsibility of teachers to point such things out. What should also be pointed out is that, no religion has all the answers to all questions. Even faiths that on the whole are good, have limitations. But each also has strengths, and beliefs or traditions which can be seen as promoting good lives for anyone who is open to the lessons taught by these traditions.
Finally, it is assumed that religious observances may include appropriate symbolism. Although religious garb is inappropriate for public schools. there should be no problem with such things as modest size crosses worn on necklaces, T-shirts that show a hexagram. or a Buddhist dharma wheel symbol lapel pin, to cite a few possible examples.
Concerning holidays, there is no problem at all with Christmas trees or creches, menorahs displayed at Channukah, and so forth. Some school districts, or colleges, may have significant religious minorities and may wish to recognize such times as Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, or the commemoration of Buddha’s Enlightenment, etc, or in the case of non-believers, a day set aside to honor Darwin or some other respected individual. Appropriate symbolism for these days is also welcomed. But nothing said here should be interpreted as allowing for any proselytizing in schools beyond what may occur in normal private conversations.
It is understood that numbers of school districts already teach the Bible as literature, or as an historic document, and the like. This is also the case for Comparative Religion, now taught in many schools across the country. However, what this Amendment does is to find a new justification for school prayer –or other religious observance of similar nature, such as a blessing (presumably at Thanksgiving or Memorial Day or other such occasions).
Care was taken not to compromise the Establishment Clause and also to make allowance for those agnostic about or opposed, on principle, to religion.
Furthermore, this Amendment specifies the value of honest criticism, intended to pull the rug out from under Political Corrects views which, in a de facto sense, provide unwritten legislation that makes truthful discussion of religion virtually impossible in many settings, including public venues.
This Amendment combines school prayer and Comparative Religion, one as an option available to believers, appropriate in recognition of America’s spiritual heritage, the other as a necessity for a pluralistic society in which people of many different faiths live side by side, go to school together, and may well work together, not even to count the military. Bible study is also part of this Amendment in recognition of the great importance of the Judeo-Christian scriptures in the history not only of the United States, but also all of Western Civilization and even other civilizations.
This Amendment affirms America’s honored traditions while at the same time recognizing that we now live in an ecumenical society with its own imperatives and new values.
11.2 Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution
The wording of the Amendment shall be as follows:
Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution
It is necessary to outlaw the practice of Islam in the United States of America because the teachings of this religion are antithetical to many vital provisions of the US Constitution and represents as existential threat to the security of American citizens. Furthermore, Shariah law, which is intrinsic to all orthodox forms of Islam, which is based directly on the Qur’an, seeks, as a stated goal of the religion, to replace civil law with a system based on inhumane values on the presumption that these values are superior to anything in the Constitution or in the religions of the world, including the religious faiths of the vast majority of Americans. All of this is completely unacceptable.
The United States was founded on ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that compulsion to practice any religion is not tolerable, nor is a state sanctioned religion allowable, nor is a ‘religious test’ for participation in government. Islam, in contrast, rejects each of these principles and it therefore incompatible, on a fundamental level, with American citizenship.
Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and impose its will on all other religions and upon democratic institutions. This view is completely unacceptable to Americans and is anti-Constitutional.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam, does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil, and this being the case, it would be unjustifiable to regard Islam as in any way compatible with the many religions which exist in the United States. But not only because of Saudi Arabia, but also because the entire history of Muslim religion has featured intimidation of non-Muslims wherever Muslims have gained power, with few and only temporary exceptions, with some cases where Muslim rule was one long series of atrocities, as it was in India where, in the course of Mughal and other Muslim rule, scholars estimate that as many as 70 or 80 million Hindus (including some Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, and Christians in this number) were killed, and a similar number enslaved and often forcibly converted to Islam. To suppose that the character of Islam is such that it can peacefully co-exist with followers of other faiths is, to be candid, an absurd proposition
Islam includes as its basic tenant the spread of its faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions, none of which is remotely compatible with the US Constitution. This ought to be obvious considering recent history as this Amendment is being written, including the jihad-inspired suicide attacks of September 11, 2001, in which 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans. This was only one chapter in a long history of Muslim attacks against Americans, including the mass murder of 220 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, the carnage, including American deaths, at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and which has continued into the present with more Americans unjustifiably killed by Muslim terrorists in non-combatant nations such as Pakistan and Yemen, with people of nations allied with the United states also killed, sometimes in great numbers, as has happened in Spain, Great Britain, on Bali in Indonesia where 200 persons, mostly Australians, were blown up, and in Mumbai, India, to list just the most well known such incidents.
Additionally, representatives of Islam around the world such as Osama Bin Laden, the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups, have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist, and this being the case any other course than outlawing Islam within the USA would be folly.
There is essentially muted opposition to all this mayhem and violence on the part of Muslim “moderates,” but it is also clear that most of the people affiliated with these groups have little or no influence on normative Islam in the Muslim world, and, as well, clearly have poor understanding of what their own religion teaches and feel free to misrepresent it to others Which is to say that apologists for Islam who take the view that their religion is actually a “religion of peace” are, in so many words, either lying or are hopelessly uniformed and, in any case, should not be given credence.
Because Islam is subversive by its very nature, and antagonistic to followers of all other religions, actively seeking to harm people of other faiths, and actively seeks to replace the US Constitution with an alien legal system that is abhorrent to Americans, Muslims have no claim to First Amendment freedoms or protections
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited. It shall be prohibited in perpetuity inasmuch as the motivation for Muslim hostility to America and to many other peoples is found in the core text of Islam, the Qur’an, a book regarded by all orthodox Muslims as inerrant, with commands to action in it regarded as absolutely binding.
Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment all mosques, schools and other Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed and confiscated by the state, determination of what to do with physical property to be decided by appropriate governmental agencies and the courts. Legitimate owners of such properties, excluding representatives of any Muslim nation in a state of war with the USA, or representatives of terrorist organizations, or of organizations known to provide tangible support for such groups, shall be compensated for their loss at fair market value. They shall be allowed to remain in the United States, under surveillance, until said properties are disposed of, but in no case more than 120 days.
In cases where American assets are confiscated in foreign countries pursuant to ratification of this Amendment, or confiscated pre-emptively because of the prospects of this Amendment, even when such action is disguised as if it was motivated by unrelated concerns, any foreign national from such country who owns property in the United States shall have his (or her) assets frozen unless and until that foreign nation allows US citizens to legally sell or otherwise dispose of their property in safety, at fair market value, secure in their persons.
All foreign born Muslims shall be deported. Muslims born in the United States who choose to remain in America shall be stripped of their citizenship and become subject to all laws enacted following ratification of this Amendment.
Anyone who advocates jihad shall be regarded as advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government and shall, upon conviction, be punished with death. This sentence shall be carried out within 90 days of a guilty verdict.
Any Muslims incarcerated in American prisons or other detention facilities shall be denied communication with any other Muslim without express written consent of the appropriate court, or special dispensation from the President. No Qurans or other Muslim literature or media of any kind shall be allowed in the possession of the detainee, nor Internet access, or any equivalent, be permitted.
The preaching of Islam in any venue is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in public schools as part of studies of religions of the world, and in colleges and universities, provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, unprovoked aggression and conquest, and its ongoing war against democratic and other non-Islamic values. What should also be made clear is that Islam teaches inferior status of women and allows for their abuse though such Qur’an-sanctioned practices as wife beating. Islam also sanctions slavery, which is expressly forbidden by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Cruel and unusual punishments are also part of the fabric of Islamic law, including such barbaric practices as amputation of hands for theft and crucifixion of prisoners of war.
It must be clearly understood that Islam demands death for classes of people who are expressly protected by provisions of American law and by the US Constitution. Included under sentence of death under Islam are all people who venerate a Goddess, since this is said to be the gravest of “sins,” defined as a category of what Muslims refer to as “shirk,” meaning association of any “partner” to (their conception of) God, aka “Allah.” This, in effect, condemns to death all Hindus, since Hindus worship a variety of Goddesses, many Buddhists since Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists venerate female deities or equivalents, many or most Taoists and Shintoists, Shamanists who have central Asian background, as well as Neo-Pagans, Ishtar devotees, many American Indians who follow their traditional religions, people from tribal parts of Africa, Melanesia, Brazil, or elsewhere, and still others. Also condemned to death under provisions of shirk are Atheists, anyone said to be guilty of “blasphemy,” even simple and honest criticism of Muhammad or the Qur’an, anyone who seeks to witness to a Muslim about another religion, any Muslim who converts to another faith and quits Islam, and still others. None of this is tolerable under the US Constitution.
Nor is Quranic and more general Muslim anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish bigotry) or anti-Christian prejudices explicit in the Qur’an tolerable under the Constitution or laws which derive therefrom.
It must be clearly understood that Islam is a religion of intimidation and threats that allows Muslims, through the doctrine of Taqqiya, to dissimulate, that is, to lie about their religion or misrepresent it to others. Such misrepresentation, it should be noted, may be unintentional given the high rate of (as usually defined) illiteracy in many Muslim countries and the “religious illiteracy” of many Muslims generally, as pointed out by researchers, to the effect that such people may, out of a desire to “go along to get along,” that is, adopt the behavioral customs of others. But such things should not be misleading and lull Americans into falsely thinking that Islam is functionally little different than other religions fairly well known in the United States. On the contrary, as outlined here, Islam is qualitatively vastly different.
Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed to allow discrimination against persons of Arab or Iranian or Pakistani or other background often associated with Islam. Indeed, it should be pointed out that Arabs may be Christians and in America often are, Iranians may be Zoroastrians, Pakistanis may be Hindus, and so forth. Nothing said here is intended to promote violence against Muslims anywhere outside of the need for actions in war, or against terrorists, or for purposes of self-protection against Muslim violence. Nothing said here is meant to incite people to destroy property owned by Muslims, either in the United States or elsewhere.
Important: Any Muslim who repudiates Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Islam, shall be excused from all provisions of this Amendment since, by definition, he or she would then no longer be a Muslim. This repudiation must be genuine, however, and made under oath. If it is discovered that false pretenses were involved the individual shall immediately be subjected to all applicable laws, retroactive to the time of the false repudiation. There is no requirement for a former Muslim to convert to any other religion although this shall be that person’s option.
This Amendment is specific to Islam in all of its forms, without exception, although members of the Ahmadiyya sect, inasmuch as they have already rejected parts of the Qur’an, shall not be under purview of American law as it applies to those parts of Muslim teachings it regards as superceded. Upon informed judicial review, much the same may be said of specific Sufi sects. The key word here is “informed.” It must be regarded as essential for any court that its members educate themselves, at a recognizable level of competence, to the nature of Islam when deciding such cases. The courts must be cognizant of Muslim propensity to conceal the truth and not be deceived by camouflage vocabulary, euphemisms, or other devices meant to mislead people about the true beliefs and intentions of followers of Muhammad.
Nothing said here is intended to apply to independent religions which may make use of the Qur’an as an historic document that has been superceded by later “revelations” or other binding pronouncements, provided no criminal recommendations in Muhammad’s book, or later equivalents, are regarded as currently in effect. “Criminal” in the context of this Amendment refers to American law as derived from the US Constitution.
Nothing said here is in any way meant to disparage arts of the past inspired by Islamic culture, architecture associated with the religion, Arabic or Persian poetry or the like, traditional Muslim costume, Mid Eastern or Turkish calligraphy, Muslim historic writings, in principle the philosophy of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), historic accomplishments by Muslims in the sciences, or anything similar, all of which have intrinsic worth.
This Amendment in no way infringes on any other religion except Islam. It is the express hope and desire of this Amendment that there shall never again be a need for such an addition to the Constitution. But as things are, and might well be into the indefinite future, it is necessary to outlaw Islam in the United States in order that the religious freedoms of Americans who are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Taoist, Confucian, Jain, Shintoist, as well as Goddess devotees, Neo-Pagans, New Age believers, Atheists, and still others, are protected and spared from the depredations of Muslims.
It may well be that “average Muslims” have little or no interest in the criminal-in-character dimensions of Islam, but this is no excuse for belonging to a religion which exists in radical opposition to the US Constitution and repeatedly produces fanatics inspired by the Qur’an who murder innocent people and commit many acts of violence in efforts to “live up to” teachings at the center of their de facto anti-American religion.
This Amendment should not be interpreted to in any way legally encumber the US Government in its dealings with Muslim-majority nations. During the era of the Cold War, the United states maintained diplomatic relations with various Communist regimes despite the fact that America and the Soviet Union and other Communist states were enemies.
However, there are implications for US military policy, among them, immediate dismissal of Muslim chaplains and all other Muslim personnel from the Armed Forces of the United States, releasing the military services from all obligations to such personnel. As well, under no circumstances shall American forces permit any implementation of Shariah law in any territory under its military authority.
What this Amendment is primarily intended to do is to make it unequivocally clear that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, which is already true, and to outlaw Muhammad’s religion within the United States and its territories and possessions. It is expected that, as a result of this Amendment, American foreign policy shall become openly opposed to Islam and that the US Government will adjust its treaties and other international relationships accordingly. It follows that it should be understood globally that American values as enshrined in the Constitution are antithetical to Islam. In conclusion, this Amendment recommends that the United States should embark on a policy of opposition to Islam and promotion of freedoms derived from the US Constitution as superior to the beliefs and values of Islam.
Additional information: This Amendment partly reflects a document published at the Free Republic website on April 20, 2008, entitled – PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST ISLAM
In several places the wording of that material has been duplicated verbatim. Much about it is highly commendable. However, it could not be re-used in its entirety because of various problems not understood by its author. Moreover, his position that Islam is a political movement and not a religion, while Islam does exhibit a clearly political and Fascistic dimension, is ultimately far too simplistic and indefensible. Therefore, many new clauses and arguments are new to the Amendment you now are reading.
Reference should be made to two other documents that make the anti-Constitutional nature of Islam unmistakably clear. These are: (1) Sharia Law and the US Constitution, by Louis Palme, published at the website, Annaqed ” The Critic ” on October 14, 2009, and (2) Questionnaire for Muslims seeking U.S.citizenship, by Billy Rojas, author of this Amendment, sometimes published under a somewhat different title.
Also, a conference on the subject, SHARIA vs. THE CONSTITUTION, was convened on November 16, 2010, at– Congressional Meeting Room North The Capitol Visitor Center Washington, DC Among guest speakers was a US Congressman. The panel discussion on the theme was intended for “Congressional staff.” The event was conducted under auspices of – The Center for Security Policy, The 7th Amendment Advocate and The Legal Project
While there are many issues which deserve extensive comment, that raise a variety of questions, three additional sources are especially relevant here, namely:
(1) ” Ex-Muslim: Proposal that Islam is Tolerant is Fallacious, Dangerous,” an article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her argument before the National Press Club in late October, 2010, and (2) Islam’s Ignorant Defenders, by David French, on the subject of both Muslim ignorance of their own religion and the even worse ignorance–overwhelmingly– of many people who defend Islam in America. This was published at the patheos website on November 10, 2010, and (3) Islamists’ Twin Assault on Free Speech, an article by Daniel Huff for October 28, 2010, published in the Middle East Forum newsletter, which makes the point that Muslims are currently seeking to muzzle free speech by all means open to them, in flagrant disregard of the First Amendment, in an on-going and co-ordinated attempt to outlaw criticism of Islam or, at a minimum, to create a climate of fear among US citizens, especially opinion makers, to make them unwilling to say anything that might offend Muslims.
In summation, there is so much that is wrong with Islam on purely objective grounds as far as any American citizen who regards the Constitution as the best possible source of law available is concerned, that it is unavoidable to make it known to the public that Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution, and, therefore, should be outlawed from the United States of America.
Prior to ratification this Amendment should be circulated to accomplish the following purposes:
To help educate American citizens and others about the realities of Islam which the mass media refuses to do. In so many words, nearly all of the major news services in the United States whitewash Muslim religion, based on a “don’t rock the boat mentality” intended to keep oil prices stable and avoid an energy crisis. Most journalists also are heavily invested in the educations they received in the Cold War era which devalued religion and regarded almost all problems as essentially economic in nature, with values considerations secondary –an outlook that is Marxist even when the name “Marx” never comes up. The view that is promoted, which can be summarized by the slogan “Islam means peace,” is, however, completely false to the facts.
This Amendment is intended to make it clear to the public that Islam is a religion unlike all others in its reliance on a system of morality that, by American standards, is criminal in character and fascist in its overall effects.
(2) PUBLIC DEBATE
Our intention is to help inspire a public awakening to the serious dangers that Islam represents to all Americans.
We want nothing less than a nationwide debate that puts honest criticisms of Islam front and center so that nothing is swept under the rug. We regard Shariah law, which follows directly from the Qur’an and which all believing Muslims regard as superior to American law and which should replace the Constitution, as inferior in almost every way and quite simply is sanctified barbarism. No-one wants expensive oil but there is absolutely no excuse to falsify the truths about Islam, and no excuse for appeasing Muslims in any of their outrageous demands for adoption of parts of Shariah law in the United States, intended to lead to adoption of more and more parts in the future.Any and all views to the effect that Shariah is compatible with democracy are absurdities.
(3) PLATFORM FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RESPONSIBLE OPPOSITION TO ISLAM
We seek to provide one more platform that allows citizens to make their voices heard in public discussions of Islam. The American public is being sold a bill of goods about Islam that the Amendment challenges directly and unequivocally. The current situation simply MUST change. False information / disinformation about Islam dominates the media and even the halls of Congress. While there are others who are doing their part to awaken Americans to the serious problems that Islam poses, no other group places emphasis on the glaring contrast between the US Constitution and Shariah law which is intrinsic to Muslim religion –and which shows a viable course of action to remedy the problem. We greatly admire the work of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes and Brigitte Gabriel and still others, and our intention is to act in co-operation with them, but we believe that strong focus on the Constitution offers a very useful and potentially important means to the common end of challenging and defeating Islam.
(4) GLOBAL OUTREACH
Inspire people in other countries to do something along the same lines. At least some people in India have already said that they wish to do something similar, to propose their own amendment to their constitution which would have the same kind of impact there as this one could have in the United States. To say the least, this kind of development is also needed in many European countries and would be useful in places like Australia, Canada, Thailand, Kenya, and Kazakhstan.
(5) MOTIVATE POLITICAL LEADERS
We need the Amendment and the sooner the better. There are no illusions about the difficulty of seeing a Constitutional Amendment introduced in Congress and about the chances of eventual ratification, but it is crucial to start the process and light a fire under our Representatives and Senators and other political leaders so that, at some point in the future, the progress of Islam in the United States will be stopped in its tracks and eliminated from our country.
Samuel Adams, Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, 1772, “The Rights of the Colonists”– In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.
John Quincy Adams
While there is question about authorship –WikiIslam regards this as a misattribution– there is no doubt that The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 includes a good deal of information about John Quincy Adams and that, while the author of the following is not identified in the text, there is genuine possibility that it is by Adams. Research by David Miller makes this identification and he is someone who has studied the writings of America’s 6th president. In any case the Annual Register was a reputable source and whomever wrote the essay which is quoted in the following material was at least a contemporary of Adams about whom Adams expressed no reservations.
John Quincy Adams on Islam
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism, pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life. The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the international circumstances that could potentially impact America adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam.
Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767), not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.
After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).
Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.
A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274).
No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—-since violence is sanctioned:
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added).
The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.
Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.
Winston Churchill Published on October 6, 1897. According to Wikipedia:
He wrote of his experiences in the borderlands with Afghanistan in a book titled The Story of the Malakand Field Force. This book detailed not only the conflict of the region, but also its cultural and military history, with notes on natural history. When his mother informed him in late 1897 that Longmans had agreed to publish this tome, he noted that “the publication of this book will certainly be the most noteworthy act of my life. Up to date (of course). By its reception I shall measure the chances of my possible success in the world.” The book appeared the following year.
In this book, when describing a local imam, Churchill coined the term “Mad Mullah”. Speaking of the Pathan and Beluchi tribesmen of the border regions, he noted with some sarcasm that “the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis, and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib (prince) – best prize of all – across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam.”
Churchill wrote: “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”