“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Abraham Lincoln

Bachmann And Fischer, No First Amendment Rights For Muslims?

with 4 comments

Attacks on Muslims are not only physical there is an intellectual current at work too. This phenomena can be seen in North America with the comment of Bryan Fischer, Right Wing Watch has more:

“While the American Family Association claims that one of its founding objectives is to “defends the rights of conscience and religious liberty from infringement by government,” its chief spokesman r continues to show his contempt for religious freedom. Fischer, the AFA’s Director of Issues Analysis, repeatedly demanded that the US deport all Muslims and prohibit and purge Muslims from the military, and also called for the banning and destruction of mosques. Fischer today attempted to reconcile his ardent opposition to Muslim religious liberty with the Constitution’s First Amendment by claiming that the Constitution actually doesn’t apply to or protect Muslims at all:

Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.

Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam.

From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. The Constitution, it bears repeating, is not a suicide pact. For Muslims, patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the First Amendment is.

To Europeans and others this might seem like irrelevant nonsense, but the United States Constitution is key to political matters within the US of A and no more so than the First Amendment.

This is how Cornell Law School describes the importance of the First Amendment:

“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.” Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of “blue laws” is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion.”

Most American politicians, and certainly anyone remotely educated, in the US would understand that, as it is drilled into them in school and college, yet Fischer chooses to deny the accepted meaning of the First Amendment and applicable to all.

So why Michele Bachmann didn’t take this matter up with Fischer when she was interviewed on his show recently is a mystery, possibly her connection to the Tea Party overrides her commitment to the First Amendment?

Just in case any Tea Partyers read this, here’s a refresher:

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

That applies to all, including Muslims in the US and people should remember that.

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Is Modernity against hate-speech laws?


    26/03/2011 at 22:15

  2. I am FOR the universal implementation of the First Amendment to all religious groups, ALL in the US.

    That’s even when I am an atheist 🙂


    26/03/2011 at 22:28

  3. […] recent controversy involved Fischer saying Muslims have no first amendment rights “for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of […]

  4. […] recent controversy involved Fischer saying Muslims have no first amendment rights “for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: