Via Reeko, my friend in DC:
Orlando: it is not a Second Amendment problem. It is a First Amendment problem. Specifically, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has correctly prohibited our government from deciding which religion is acceptable and which is not. Until now.
Unfortunately, our constitutional guardians have failed us. The politicians sworn to support, preserve, or protect our constitution have now allowed the following to be our current state of affairs: that Islamic Jihad is not recognized as either a tenet or doctrine of Islam. All of a sudden, our politicians are now certified theological experts in the matter. Either that or somebody made Islam our officially sanctioned religion, a religion which nobody is allowed to debate. Officially, the terms “Islamic Jihad” are not allowed to appear in any official document.
My question is, just when was the establishment clause overturned to allow this? Did I miss it?
A government that declares any tenet, belief, or practice of a religion to be the “true” version of that religion, is therefore choosing a side in that religion and that is undeniably prohibited by our constitution. Even if a government denounces any other tenet, belief, or practice of that same religion and declares those adherents to be practicing the “high-jacked” or corrupted version of that religion, then such a government has indeed inserted itself and sanctioned an established official religion.
Consider that our government is supposed to be prohibited from declaring that all Baptists are true Christians because they baptize by immersion in water, while all Presbyterians are untrue Christians because they do not. Or that all Protestants are true Christians and all Catholics are unholy idolaters. Wars have been fought and many people have died throughout history over such ecumenical differences. The beauty of our enlightened Constitution is that it forbids the official taking of sides in these internecine battles. The prohibition against establishing an official religion – or even an official doctrine within a religion – has always been cemented firmly between unduly preferring any tenet or belief of say, Catholic over Protestant, Atheist over Nativist, Jew over Gentile, or whatever. Until now apparently.
For example: when Obama and his enablers and apologists in both political parties state that the Islamic State (ISIS) isn’t Islam, or that Al Qaeda or any other Jihadic terrorist groups are those who have “perverted Islam” then that official statement would be a distinct and undeniable theological assessment. It also means that Islamic Jihad as a tenet of Islam would no longer be recognized as Islamic. All of the Imams in Islam can go to hell. Obama will by golly tell them what is or is not their true religion.
Think about the implications.
Are we, as a country, going to allow our government to promote and approve a tenet of any religion as the only officially sanctioned version of that religion? The Establishment Clause of the Constitution says no. When was that changed?
Nice Deb 
As noted on another post recently, if the Quran is read and taken to mean what it says, the “Islamic Jihadis” are the true believers, the rest are what could most kindly be called “jack” Muslims – Muslims by name and convenience only.
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
good point Carlos. but even if someone judiciously separated “good” Muslims from “bad” Muslims, that would still be a religious task. our constitution prohibits any part of our government from deciding which is a true believer of anything, ie: “establishing” a religion.
the point is, we are not at war with Islam. we are at war with Sharia Law and its adherents. Islam can – and does – exist without Sharia, but Sharia cannot exist without Islam. and, there is plenty of precedents in US law that allows for our government to legitimately and legally intervene in religious laws that are not in accordance with our constitution. just like the British did with the Thugees of Kali, and the US did with the Ghost Dancers of the Plains Indians.
furthermore, the State can compel parents to have their children operated on or blood transfusions or inoculated against disease because that is within the sphere of our greater good without being religious, or establishing a religious precedent or preventing a religious precedent (other than death). parents who refuse to take their children to a hospital for life-saving treatments can be punished. on a larger scale, religious tenets which call for full and open rebellion or war against the US and its citizenry have also been held that the State is well within the constitution to prohibit or curtail its violence. just ask the Ghost Dancers. or the Lutherans.
likewise the opposite is allowed for “conscientious objections” like the Menonites or the Anabaptists.
but no government can proclaim which adherent, tenet, doctrine, or discipline of ANY religion is the “true” version of that religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My point isn’t about whether the government “recognizes” either the radical Muslim or the “moderate” Muslim – it has no business recognizing either, for the reasons you pointed out.
My point is that the government, the politicians from both sides of the aisle, the “academics” (who in fact know extremely little and don’t have the guts to allow discussion), and especially the media have thrown the discussion into a category equal to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. “Islam” may or may not mean “peace,” but its true adherents who follow its demands are anathema to every tenet of Christianity, the Constitution, and, ultimately, civilization.
And the fools who elected our Constitution-hating and America-hating president are as stupid and blind about this as they are about Hillarious’ integrity/.
LikeLike
bingo! well said indeed.
LikeLike