Results of Collusion Between Secularists and Islamists

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Nov 17, 2010 at 15:51

A peculiar distinctive of the Constitution of the United States of America is in its provisions for government of the people ("We the People"), by the people and for the people under the auspices of an Eternal Sovereign, even as its provisions are tested daily by antagonists of constitutional government such as those supporting shari'a law. That the current U. S. Government seems unwilling from the outset to defend this most fundamental aspect of American citizenship is underscored by ANY in a federal position of responsibility allowing any attempt to undermine those protections of freedom of citizenship; which is (or at minimum, should be) a warning sign to any who understand the implications.

For shari'a law to be implemented in the United States of America, the U. S. Constitution would be, of a necessity determined by the enemies of the American freedom of citizenship, targeted for retirement, the specific goal of organizations like C.A.I.R. and likeminded entities and people. Guess where the desire for that comes from.

Under the provisions of the U. S. Constitution, implementation of any aspect of shari'a law not in conformance with the Constitution should be rejected out of hand. In its innate contraindications to the democratic process here in the United States, it requires a submission to a legal system that does not recognize the equal rights of all who are required to obey, and as can be seen in places where shari'a is the law of the land, the enforcement provisions are arbitrarily imposed without proper due process. This is completely antithetical to the governing of American citizenship.

Now there are the arguments (the allegations of western style government being corrupted), many of which are directed improperly towards the United States style of democracy (vastly different from all others), which is, as said before, peculiar in its processes compared worldwide to other democracies, that they are said to be sufficient to argue the Islamic preference towards shari'a law. Separating U. S. Law from other democracies, the failure that may be argued is not based in the original precepts contained in the U. S. Constitution, but in the enforcement of specific applications as capriciously interpreted by those responsible for proper application and failing to do so.

In attempting to set aside the religious implications inherent in the U. S. Constitution, the process of migrating U.S. Law into a completely secular mindset and construction dishonors the hard work and sacrifices of those who help found this country; and in doing so, the secularization plays into the hands of the Islamists' sympathizers hell bent to destroy the United States of America as a Constitutional Republic. Terms of discrimination may be inferred in this process, yet look at the true victim being targeted: those who would stand and defend the true application of Constitutional rights. After all, Islam was never copacetic with 'Christian' applications of law, requiring dhimmitude for all non-muslim sectors of society, a specific application to be implemented in shari'a law.

People of great responsibility in the United States government are supposed to defend the U. S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and yet we see that being litigated away as the process of diminishing American freedoms continues. Seriously, folks: have we spent over two hundred years of defending this country in blood, sweat and tears in its God-given independent course of freedom to allow a group of secularist lawyers let it all slip away? Where are the true defenders of the U. S. Constitution and why are they not 'in the breach' to vouchsafe and assure American constitutional freedoms for ourselves and our posterity?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".