As it is the guide to how the Federal and state governments must act with regard to the issue of religion, I will quote the First Amendment of the Constitution:
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.When the First Amendment was adopted the so-called religion of Islam was not practiced on the American continent. Our nation's first and regrettable interaction with Islam was in the field of foreign relations. It was during the administration of President John Adams that the European practice of making extortion payments to the states sponsored Barbary Pirates was adopted. When in the process of delivering the extortion payment to the Dey of Algiers, Captain William Bainbridge of the frigate USS George Washington was compelled at cannon point to deliver tribute, including slaves, to the Sultan of the Ottoman empire while under the flag of Algiers.
It was in response to this barbaric act that President Thomas Jefferson sent the United States Navy to the Mediterranean Sea to directly engage and suppress the state sponsored pirates. While President Jefferson was fully a man of peace he clearly understood that the value of peace could not be separated from the value of freedom.
As long as Islam was solely an aspect of foreign affairs it would not become a constitutional issue. But because emigration of Muslims to the United States and proselytism was permitted Islam has now become a political issue.
The fundamental problem is the criminal nature of Islam. The open contempt for the rights of individuals and nations is written directly into the doctrine. As a historically confirmed fact the doctrine of Islam was invented solely as a means to justify the predatory actions of the obviously false prophet Mohammed and his willing followers. As a doctrine Islam allowed the followers of Mohammed to continue the profitable wave of crime and terror after his death.
And where the doctrine of Islam does make a spiritual promise it only has a meaning with the criminal followers of Mohammed. In this it is promised the followers of Islam will receive eternal access to a supply of eternal rape victims in Allah's eternal whorehouse.
In an actual religion the follower must comply with the rules set down by God, including the command to respect the rights of other people. In effect to live a fully Human life. The doctrine of Islam commands the followers to rob and murder those who properly reject Islam. To behave as predatory animals.
Within a civilized nation this is absolutely beyond the boundary of toleration. To deal with the problem of Islam I had previously proposed an amendment to the Constitution:
All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.The obvious question that has been raised in the past is why do I not call for a ban on Islam by name? A name is only a mental label for the concept. Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrine of Islam, the doctrine also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary. Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Muslim will occur. It is by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Islam that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment.
A fundamental attribute of the doctrine of Islam is the denial of real laws. The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people. In declaring "man made" laws to be invalid Mohammed opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes -- including rape, robbery, and murder -- that would be carried out by himself and for his own personal benefit. This action is absolutely intolerable in a civil society. In reality The people are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation. In reality Islam has to go. And in order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights.
And our urban collaborators need to be dealt with, too.