Contemplating Amendment XXVIII to the USA Constitution

Submitted by Robert (United States), Jan 30, 2017 at 07:55

In 1791, when the Bill of Rights (First 10 amendments) was adopted the religion of Islam did not breed terrorism as it does in 2017.

Our constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion. That may limit our ability to vet out Muslim immigrants or tourists with visas.

Just as the prohibition amendment was eventually repealed, perhaps our constitution should be amended to permit our immigration and customs officials to stop Muslims from coming to the USA - until such time when the religion of Islam adopts to the modern world.

There was a time when Roman Catholicism had the practice of burning "witches" at the stake. But that is no longer the case. How long, or how many generations, it will take for the religion of Islam to stop breeding terrorists, no one knows.

Citizens of the United States of American may need to amend the constitution so that the nature of our founding principles aren't diluted by drastically changing the population density from its Judaeo-Christian roots.

The fact is that people do not choose their religion freely. Religion is acquired by parents training their children in their parents religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Islam is not a Religion of Peace these days. Perhaps one day it will be - but not because Sharia has replaced our Constitution as the Law of the Land because too many Muslim believers immigrate to our shores.

Certainly there are many wonderful American Muslim citizens in our country. But the reality is that on September 11, 2001, 19 Muslim terrorists murdered almost 3,000 innocent Americans in the name of Muhammad. Islam is not a minority religion. There are today 1.6 billion Muslims in the word. And a very small percentage of such a large number poses a real threat not only to our physical well being, but also to the very institutions upon which our country was founded. We know this from the nature of our Supreme Court; its composition, whether liberal, or conservative is what determines our constitutional law in practice. Accordingly, the more Muslims become American, the more likely does it become that Sharia law will take hold (though it is unlikely). Religion, unfortunately, is to much like a contagious disease which one inherits from one's parents; and once one has it, one always believes it is the best one. So religious liberty is a misnomer. It only means that one will not force another to abandon it. But a "true believer" is never free to leave one's belief system, or to convert, except in theory. Why then should the United States, in which today Islam is a minority religion, allow itself to be changed by substantially increasing the proportion of Muslims in our country?

Contrary to the 1883 Statue of Liberty, the United States was not created only as a refuge for the world's miseries; it was created for the good of its own citizens, and arguably as a beacon to the rest of the world. Why dim that beacon by increasing the proportion of Muslims in it? A better solution is the creation of Safe Zones in Muslim countries. Furthermore, one must observe that no non-Muslims in fact migrate into Muslim majority countries. Why? And isn't that destructive to the world - that Muslim countries are only spreading Islam to the Western, non-Muslim world? We are concerned with animal populations and the extinction of species. But why aren't we concerned with the fact that Muslims are massacring one another in the name of Islam or the Arab Spring - and at the same time spreading Muslim believers in the millions to countries where there are too few Muslims to murder one another? In reality, Muslims are murdering one another these days, and yet the myth or dogma that Islam is a Religion of Peace continues, as well as the principle that one should not discriminate against Islam; this is the unfortunate consequence of the evil of Racism which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the inclination to discriminate against Islam, a religion breeding terror today.

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".