When the founding fathers of the United States created the Constitution of the United States, they built into the document constraints against, among other things, the excesses of the Church of England. At that time, the Church of England was the only accepted form of religion sanctioned by the English King, and was largely a product of the wars against Catholicism and the French . Nevertheless, the founders of the United States went to great lengths to insure that no government under the Constitution could establish and maintain a state-sanctioned religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Judiciaries and analysts henceforth have interpreted that to become the doctrine of “separation of Church and State” with liberal extensions of the definition of church to include such oddities as The Partridge Family Temple, The Church of Least Resistance, or The First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis. Ingrained in American society is a tolerance for religion, but this very tolerance could become the cancer destroying the fabric of American society.
Seldom in the the papers of the founding fathers, or in the numerous journals and diaries these gentlemen produced, was there the consideration of a religion that itself was a form of Government. (John Q. Adams seems to have, in fact, some acquaintance with Islam.) In fact, the entire concept of Islam would have been anathema to these men as this represented what the Church of England had become in their minds. With the practice of religion tied to Shariah Law, itself inimical to the rights enumerated in the first and other Amendments, Islam was explicitly what the Founders sought to avoid—a church intrinsically tied to the State.
Alas, in today’s environment, any attempt to preserve the American Way, or preserve choice among the people, is blocked when that choice runs up against Shariah. The particular case of the Minneapolis taxi drivers refusing to carry alcohol is one example. Otherwise well meaning people, when confronted with the dichotomy which is Islam, opt for the first amendment language protecting religion. As a result, Shariah Law is building a foothold in the United States. How many local ordinances against loud noises in the morning will be voided in the name of the first amendment when mosques begin their 5:00 AM muezzin prayer calls.
Anticipating the rise of Islam in the United States, (and Islam as a religious practice divorced of the Shariah, can and should be allowed) a safeguard will be required to protect the basic fundamentals of the Constitution. To this end I propose that the Constitution be amended to explicitly address the exclusion of Shariah Law within the United States and its possessions. This is the best and easiest way to avoid the trap constructed within the Constitution: i.e., that the First Amendment dictates that we must allow, as a religion, a system whose practice is contrary to the balance of the Bill of Rights.
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
June 14, 2007 at 12:56 am
The government certainly controls religion. This is done through deciding the tax status of an organization.
June 14, 2007 at 10:29 am
Ahhh, xenophobia.
Where’s your concern over Christians ringing their church bells at all hours (re: your Muezzin example)? The Muezzin isn’t unique to Muslims practicing Sharia law, so your example is a poor one.
If people choose to restrict themselves to a degree greater than what’s permitted by the first amendment, they’re (ironically enough) exercising their first amendment rights (re: your taxi driver example). A Minneapolis cabby’s decision to deny you service because you’re carrying a 12-pack of PBR does not require changes to the US Constitution. Whether or not that denial of service is legit is a business matter for the cabby and his boss to discuss.
June 14, 2007 at 10:32 am
I gotta give the ole high five to Optimist on this one. I wonder, though, where our favorite troll Mr. Catholic falls on this one?
June 14, 2007 at 10:34 am
Where’s your concern over Christians ringing their church bells at all hours (re: your Muezzin example)? The Muezzin isn’t unique to Muslims practicing Sharia law, so your example is a poor one.
Um… Christians don’t ring church bells at all hours. Do you even live in reality? Christian churches, if they have church bells, only ring them during the normal hours of the day. They don’t ring them when it would be disturbing the peace.
If people choose to restrict themselves to a degree greater than what’s permitted by the first amendment, they’re (ironically enough) exercising their first amendment rights (re: your taxi driver example). A Minneapolis cabby’s decision to deny you service because you’re carrying a 12-pack of PBR does not require changes to the US Constitution. Whether or not that denial of service is legit is a business matter for the cabby and his boss to discuss.
No it isn’t. You need to RTFA. The city of Minneapolis requires them to provide service to everyone at an airport. The LAW prohibits them from discrimination.
June 14, 2007 at 10:54 am
Troll is harsh. 🙂
Oddly enough, I agree pretty much with APO on this. Muslims should have the same rights as everybody else, no more, no less. If noise ordinances forbid the call to prayer, they probably already do forbid the tolling of bells. If not, the local Muslims can, and should, call foul and bring the matter to court.
What we cannot allow is the imposition of sectarian law in the place of civil and criminal law. This is the road both the UK and Canada are flirting with (with regard to Sharia and other religious codes).
As a Catholic, oddly, I feel that the Church’s approach in the US is the right one: recognize that civil law and Church law are separate. So a civil divorce has no effect on the Church’s view of the validity of a marriage, but the Church respects the civil issues (division of property, etc.).
To be honest, I see Muslim immigration to the US as a good, even great thing. It means more and more Muslims and non-Muslims will have to learn to get along in a society that doesn’t allow either to run roughshod over the other. For many, many Muslims that’s going to be a radically new experience, which can only help Islam develop towards greater liberty.
The United States really is the hope of the world, precisely because it shows that people of many cultures can come together and become one, without throwing aside what makes them unique. American pluralism is the middle road between the swamps of multiculturalism and ethnocentrism.
June 14, 2007 at 11:13 am
Um… Christians don’t ring church bells at all hours.
No kidding! So if they’re not ringing their bells for the 8am service on Sunday morning, don’t you think there might be some legal reason (or civic compromise) for this? Why are Muslims different? The author of this screed implies that people will be gouging out eyes and forcing burkas on unsuspecting women unless there’s a minaret on every corner. What’s next? Orthodox Jews forcing everyone to wear yarmulkes?! Fundie Christians demanding the teaching of Creationism in public schools?! (oh wait…crap)
Do you even live in reality?
Yes, you should try it some time.
You need to RTFA.
…which I did
The city of Minneapolis requires them to provide service to everyone at an airport. The LAW prohibits them from discrimination.
Well, after R’ing TFA, I see no mention of this “LAW.” Maybe it’s you’re using an acronym I’m not familiar with? Or maybe you could provide evidence of this alleged law (since your word in this case is rather dubious).
The author of this lame diatribe claims …tolerance could become the cancer destroying the fabric of American society… with no strong evidence to back such an absurd assertion. Tolerance is, and will continue to be, the bulwark of this great nation.
June 14, 2007 at 1:15 pm
No kidding! So if they’re not ringing their bells for the 8am service on Sunday morning, don’t you think there might be some legal reason (or civic compromise) for this? Why are Muslims different?
Because the Muslims are already demanding the laws be changed to fit Shariah. Additionally, 8am bells on a sunday would hardly violate a noise ordinance in most cities.
Here are some articles that discuss why it is illegal for Muslims driving taxis at airports to refuse service:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/travel/muslims-in-culture-clash-at-airport/2007/06/13/1181414346329.html
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C06%5C03%5Cstory_3-6-2007_pg7_51
Tolerance, is indeed a bulwark of American society, but the hippy bull shit version being peddled today (where tolerance means not only accepting but kow towing) is crap, and could destroy American society.
June 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Actually I find Americans very tolerant, and this is fundamentally why a group of diverse people can live together without the strife of say Palestine, or Northern Ireland.
The First Amendment issue could be applied to any “religion” which carries a legal behavior code which superceeds our civil code, although I admit, I chose Islam with malice aforethought, having been through the Minneapolis airport about a hundred times.
This argument (rant) is construed to review the way the inherent trap in the First Amendment is being interpreted. Already there is serious contention over separation of church and state and how far it should go, none of which is explicit in the Amendment. Activist judges and liberal political theorists have extended and construed, in my opinion, the words of the Amendment to preclude ‘any’ religious activities (pro or con — on the part of the Government) on the thinnest of theoretical reeds. If one uses the First Amendment to support Shariah (if only by allowing compliance in the name of religious tolerance), then the balance of the Amendments are intrinsically violated. This is and will be a bad thing.
RE: The church bell thing — Perhaps you may have noticed that the predominant origins of Islam tend to be between the tropic of Capricorn and Cancer, where the distinction between a white thread and a black thread tend to be discerned around 6 o’clockish (AM or PM). In higher latitudes, this distinguishing feat tends to occur at much more inconvenient hours. (Which says something for the tolerance of Great Britian). Perhaps the lazier Muslims should move to Alaska where they could do all their praying during the equinoxes and take a haitius during the summer and winter months.
June 14, 2007 at 3:20 pm
AOC wrote: “Muslims should have the same rights as everybody else, no more, no less.”
IMO the Catholic Church’s marriage regulations—once they were explained well—actually make a great deal of sense to me. Basically there is civil law and church law, and the two are separate. You want the church to recognize your marriage, you have to do what the church requires, which is usually above and beyond what is required by the state. In the eyes of the state, your marriage may be valid, but not in the eyes of the church. Makes sense to me. Don’t like it? It’s very simple: Don’t have a church-sanctioned wedding.
(Unfortunately the nomenclature is highly confusing to an outsider, as a relative found out when she was asked questions about a former marriage when her ex-husband was remarrying in a Catholic ceremony. My relative was highly offended by the priest asking her if “her marriage had been valid.” Her reply was “We were married for nine years—you’ve seen the certificate—had a child, I wore his ring, what do you think?” Of course, the priest meant “sacramental,” as in recognized by the church, but didn’t explain it very well. I found this out later from AOC and subsequently relayed the information about the whole miscommunication.)
Anyway, I totally agree with the sentiment: no special treatment. You are quite welcome to hold yourselves to a different standard if you want, but the state will not recognize this standard.
Of course, APO’s argument about denial of service also applies to pharmacists who refuse to serve women with prescriptions for things like birth control, assuming the law stated that pharmacists could not deny service. So it indeed does cut more than one way.
June 14, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Of course, APO’s argument about denial of service also applies to pharmacists who refuse to serve women with prescriptions for things like birth control, assuming the law stated that pharmacists could not deny service. So it indeed does cut more than one way.
So this is where I suspect Mr. Catholic will begin trolling, as I imagine he is all for preventing Muslims for doing things against their religion, but will call down hell fire and damnation on people who say pharmacists should have to dispense birth control.
June 14, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Nick’s Johnson wrote: “So this is where I suspect Mr. Catholic will begin trolling, as I imagine he is all for preventing Muslims for doing things against their religion, but will call down hell fire and damnation on people who say pharmacists should have to dispense birth control.”
I’ve known AOC for a long time (well over a decade) and I kinda doubt it but I’ll let him speak for himself.
IMO, the laws that talk about no denial of service should generally apply to the corporation, not an individual. As a thoroughly secular person, I would have no particular problem if a pharmacist *politely* said, “I don’t dispense this medicine due to my religious obligations, let me get one of my colleagues.” Now if the pharmacist was rude to me about it, I would not do business there again unless the manager made some pretty BIG amends. Pharmacies are very substitutable so I can go down the block. If the pharmacy doesn’t carry such products that would also be viable in my regard—let the market decide if the notion that not dispensing birth control pills is a good decision for a pharmacy. Heck, in the day and age of drugstore.com it’s even less trouble, and your stuff shows up in the mail in a few days. (The fact that HMOs restrict which pharmacy you can go to complicates matters but this strikes me as an argument for market in this case.)
I largely feel the same about religious symbols during the winter holidays. (I don’t like the holidays much because I find the forced cheer oppressive, but that’s a different story.) Let everyone put their stuff up, so long as it’s not obscene, a public nuisance, etc. The state shall play no favorites.
The point is, in these matters there is often a very reasonable middle ground where both parties can be accommodated at little or no cost. In a diverse society, it is important to seek out such accommodations. It’s important for people of good will to recognize that there won’t be universal agreement, that negotiation is necessary and that the notion of winning or losing is a bad way to think about it. This is, IMO, a good sense of “tolerance.”
On the other hand, a society’s got to have a core set of values. One of ours is “your religion doesn’t get to be privileged over others or over the law of the state.” You don’t like that, don’t move here or figure out a way to change a hell of a lot of people’s minds. To the extent that Muslims want to have Shariah supersede the law of the state (even if only for them), is bad. I’m not singling out Muslims—I think the same should hold for everyone else. That’s how I read APO’s rant.
June 15, 2007 at 10:47 am
So this is where I suspect Mr. Catholic will begin trolling, as I imagine he is all for preventing Muslims for doing things against their religion, but will call down hell fire and damnation on people who say pharmacists should have to dispense birth control.
Okay, first let me pick a nit. You do realize that “troll” has a specific meaning in this context—to post an extreme position for the specific purpose of eliciting a response—right? A troll need not believe what he or she posts, and often does not. So, posting, say, a mainstream Catholic, conservative, or whatever position on something is only a “troll” to a bigot, moonbat, etc. Just saying…
To address the actual point. I think that laws that require pharmacies or pharmacists to dispense drugs they consider dangerous or immoral are bad laws. Where immediate matters of health are involved, perhaps they make sense—but for things like contraceptives, where immediate access is in no way required to live a healthy human life, I think they’re stupid.
At the same time, I can recognize that the intentions of those proposing such laws may well be sincerely good. Especially if they don’t see the harm in the substances involved. You see, I believe that it’s possible for well-intentioned people to enact harmful laws with terrible unforeseen consequences.
So, no, generally I don’t call down “hellfire and damnation” on such people. Though, I do wonder, now that every dire prediction about the effects of birth control has come true, why they continue to think it’s a nifty panacea. Less zealous hatred and more confusion at their invincible ignorance, as it were.
June 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Oh come now Mr. Catholic, can you really claim this blog is anything but a poorly disguised troll? Calling you my favorite troll is a compliment my friend! I like your trolls the best. Optimist is a bit too sane is his opinions, and your other writers don’t boil the blood so much. You, however, have a real talent!
Basically, however, the current point is you are admitting you are hypocrit. Catholics should be allowed to ignore their job for religion, but the Muslims? Oh course not! If we did that, Bushy Shrub Shrub might have to admit they were human beings!
I mean it isn’t as if alcohol has had “dire predictions” about its effects which have come true! It isn’t as if thousands of lives are ruined daily by alcohol! And of course, as you point out, alcohol is something where immediate matters of health are involved, so the Muslims must give them a ride.
So true, so true.
Well please do post some articles on how to act like a Catholic. When you and the Republican’ts get done passing laws which make Catholics a favored class of people, I want to be able to blend in so I’m not a second class citizen.
June 15, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Ah, yes, I see, any law or position that you don’t agree with is that of a “hypocrit”. As I said before, I think a law requiring every pharmacist at every pharmacy to dispense birth control would be a bad law. I also think, for example, that a law requiring every restaurant to serve pork would be a bad law. Or a law requiring stores to be open on Friday. Or any number of other laws that would force Muslims to choose between violating their faith and holding various jobs.
On the other hand, a law requiring taxicab drivers to pick up any fare at the airport is probably a good law. So are laws requiring police to enforce all the laws on the books—so that a Catholic police chief has to allow the KKK to march through the city.
It’s not hypocritical to say that the example you cited is an example of a bad law. I didn’t argue that Catholics shouldn’t have to follow it, I argued that it shouldn’t be passed in the first place. See the subtle logical distinction?
So that you can improve your discourse, let me give you some actual examples of hypocrisy:
1. Citing the First Amendment in order to apply your own sectarian law without others being able to do so.
2. Citing the First Amendment in order to ban Christian (or Muslim) holiday displays while permitting or encouraging Muslim (or Christian) holiday displays.
3. Deriding other people for their sweeping denunciations while making even more sweeping ones yourself.
You see? Hypocrisy requires that the hypocrite wants to engage in the behavior being condemned without being called out about it. If you had, for example, asked whether I would support establishing Catholic Canon Law as US law, and I said yes, then I would be a hypocrite.
Like you, I would sometimes (on my worst days) like to live in a world where I could—by the unparalleled force of my mighty will—declare people to be hypocrites without citing any actual hypocrisy. Unlike you, I realize I don’t.
June 15, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Oh, as for the remark about the blog: okay, we all plead guilty, at least a little bit! 🙂
June 15, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I think a law requiring every pharmacist at every pharmacy to dispense birth control would be a bad law. I also think, for example, that a law requiring every restaurant to serve pork would be a bad law. Or a law requiring stores to be open on Friday
You are mixing your metaphors silly! A pharamcist isn’t a drug store. If you want to open your own chain of drug stores called “Pope Pharmacy”, and not carry birth control, be my guest! But a pharmacist, as an employee, must dispense birth control if his employer wants him too.
If he objects religiously, he needs to go work at “Pope Pharmacy”.
On the other hand, a law requiring taxicab drivers to pick up any fare at the airport is probably a good law. So are laws requiring police to enforce all the laws on the books—so that a Catholic police chief has to allow the KKK to march through the city.
Again with the mixed metaphors! The taxi driver controls one cab of many, there are many cabs which can pick up the fare. He isn’t in charge of a business, or a city, but just a little pharmacy counter… err cab.
Your hypocrisy is evident enough to all thinkers in the room. Here is an ice bucket, bury your head in it if you continue to believe otherwise.
June 15, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Okay time to chime in with the Violent Fascist (there is a streak of Libertarianism also, in the rugge dinidividualist ideals) side of things.
I personally as far as legal terms go have no problem with a Pharmacist not dispensing a drug due to personal convictions. I also think then when there ass is fired for costing the business money (that is the goal of a business afterall) they ought to have no legal recourse. If Church and State are separate then so should business and Religion. In fact the very notion that employers can not discriminate based on religion is abhorrent. If Joe Blow hates muslims then the government has no right forcing him to hire one, much less respect his practices and religious holidays!
All this in regards to legal standpoint. On a personal note, dont get mad, get even. Stop running to the government and deal with the issue face to face. Taxi driver refuses you service for alchol, flip him the bird and slash his tires. Pharmacist refuses to dispense pills forcing you to drive to the next store and waste another 10 minutes of your time, spit on them and swear for about a good 5 minutes. Try it you’ll find it relieves the tension oh so well! Heck you never know they might think twice before beign a jackass to their next customers after that.
Troll enough for you? No, oh wait let me just throw in the good old last resort flame bait. Flag burning: it should be legal, but by the same coin then so should be flag burner burning 😀
June 15, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Err–actually,
Muslim cabbies control about 80% of the Minneapolis cab market, whch is why it IS a problem. Otherwise, a PBR packing tourista could flag down the Pope Cab.
June 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I agree Mr. Optimist, but I doubt Mr. Catholic would do the same if 80% of Minneapolis’ pharmacy market was run by Catholics.
I’m all for forcing the towel-heads to carry us fine beer swillin’ ‘mericans. I’m just pointing out that for all his cries for “Death to Allah”, Mr. Catholic is in the same boat, he just doesn’t realize it.
I think Catholics should have to despense birth control, just like camel jockey’s should have to give lifts to Bush… err drunks.
June 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I personally as far as legal terms go have no problem with a Pharmacist not dispensing a drug due to personal convictions. I also think then when there ass is fired for costing the business money (that is the goal of a business afterall) they ought to have no legal recourse.
Here here!
Stop running to the government and deal with the issue face to face. Taxi driver refuses you service for alchol, flip him the bird and slash his tires. Pharmacist refuses to dispense pills forcing you to drive to the next store and waste another 10 minutes of your time, spit on them and swear for about a good 5 minutes.
Amen to that brotha!
June 15, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oh my, I actually meant that one should swear ‘AT’ the pharmacist, my apologies for making it seem that I was implying one should storm off and stew in private. Far from it, a good slew of explatives can bring down even the most cheery person’s day. If you had to be annoyed, no reason they should have a pleasant day either, am I right?
By the same token, if a driver didnt want to carry my beer but did, and I say spilt my beer in the cab, then the driver has every right to throw my ass to the curb, send me the cleaning bill, and shout some derogatory comments about lazy, fat, inconsiderate, American. Any complaints out of me, and it would be plain Jack-assery on my part. Turn around is fair afterall.
If an employee doesnt want to give me a religious holiday off I can either A)Work the day, B) Not work it and get fired, or C) say I understand there position but I will be resigning then (oh wait that DID happen).
If I do D) run to the government (lower case ‘g’) crying like a little bitch about my rights being violated my employer ought to first laugh at me (along with the burecrat whose time I wasted complaining about it to), then kick me upside the head for being a baby wanting his mommy instead of an adult who takes responsibility (read consequences) for his own decisions. Oh and the ‘call this a gummit’ employee should get to kick me upside the head too, cause well, lets face it, that can be a boring suck ass job, they could really use the occasional ‘beating up a citizen’ break.
February 8, 2008 at 7:03 am
teachers, religious leaders – even friends, or so called friends – take over where parents leave off. They demand that we feel only the feelings they want and expect from us. They demand all the time that we perform feelings for them. We’re like actors – turned loose in this world to wander in search of a phantom…endlessly searching for a half-forgotten shadow of our lost reality. When others demand that we become the people they want us to be, they force us to destroy the person we really are. It’s a subtle kind of murder….the most loving parents and relatives commit this murder with smiles on their faces.
September 9, 2011 at 5:47 am
Thanks for the thoughts you have provided here. Additionally, I believe there are a few factors which will keep your insurance premium lower. One is, to bear in mind buying motors that are in the good list of car insurance providers. Cars which are expensive are definitely more at risk of being lost. Aside from that insurance policies are also depending on the value of your automobile, so the costlier it is, then higher your premium you have to pay.
October 24, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Anguilla Rentals…
[…]The Shariah Amendment « The 12 Angry Men Blog[…]…
March 22, 2012 at 8:53 am
חתונות…
[…]The Shariah Amendment « The 12 Angry Men Blog[…]…