This morning, prompted by this article, Weird Dave asks this:
Question: Can/should the 1st Amendment be re-written to exclude religions like Islam?
The problem isn’t as stiff as one might think, because it isn’t really “to exclude religions like Islam.” It’s to define religion in a fashion that includes only creeds that are noncoercive matters of individual choice. Islam would not qualify under those conditions.
When the First Amendment was composed, Fisher Ames did not imagine that a creed as noxious as Islam would ever come to our shores. Perhaps he had no acquaintance with it. So he used the undefined term religion without ensuring that it would exclude cults that practice murder, slavery, rape, and the oppression of non-members.
There are many undefined terms in our lexicon, because definition itself is hierarchical. We define a category this way:
Category X consists of all those items which:
- Are members of Category Y (the genus.)
- And also possess property Z (the differentia.)
So pursuing the definition of category X down through its genus category Y brings us to the even larger category Q which is the genus of category Y, and so on until we reach the “base” of undefined terms (e.g., “reality”).
Today’s exercise in lexicography is to propose such a definition for religion. It can be done, but it takes some care not to exclude any benevolent creed while excluding all non-benevolent ones. Give it a try. Post your proposed definition in the comments.
4 comments
Skip to comment form
Dave’s question is apt. The 1st Amendment stands as written regardless; however, an amendment could be passed that would modify it.
Your challenge to propose a definition for “religion” is an interesting way to look at the problem. I’m a bit worried that if we start screwing around with definitions of words to try to change the way the government operates, we could be opening Pandora’s Box. We already got a taste of that in the early 20th century when the definition of “income”, previously defined as what we would call “capital gains” was stretched to include “wages”, which were previously legally considered a swap of time/labor for money and non-taxable. I’m sure you can think of more examples like this (and TBH I’d be fascinated by them).
For right now, I’m gonna work with what we’ve got. Stealing from Wictionary, “Religion”:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion
“From Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religiō (“scrupulousness, pious misgivings, superstition, conscientiousness, sanctity, an object of veneration, cult-observance, reverence”).”
Belief in a spiritual or metaphysical reality (often including at least one deity), accompanied by practices or rituals pertaining to the belief.
A particular system of such belief, and the rituals and practices proper to it.
Islam, for all of my deep criticisms of its tenets and what they drive their adherents to do in some cases, qualifies under the rather broad publicly accepted definition of religion.
The trick is to make “Religion” the genus (generally protected) and “Islam” (and any ideology like it) as the differentia, which would be heuristically identified by their belief-driven violations of other’s equal rights.
Forcing me to convert from my religion to your religion under coercive threats (or killing me for refusing) is a deep violation of my own individual 1st Amendment rights. Faiths with ideologues who do this should not be allowed to practice here.
Forcing others into slavery because it’s an acceptable practice of your religion is a hard violation of the 13th Amendment. Faiths that sanction slavery should not be allowed to practice here.
Extorting “protection money” (Jizyah) from people of other faiths as a standard practice of your religion is obviously a violation of the 1st Amendment religious rights of those of other faiths as well as their property rights. Faiths that sanction extortion of people of other faiths should not be allowed to practice here.
I could go on and on… But just these three ought to be enough to start. From them, how about we pass an Amendment that says,
“The protection of the free exercise of religious practice provided under the 1st Amendment shall not apply to persons or institutions of any religion or ideology whose beliefs demand their followers engage in violence against non-believers, including forced conversions, extortion, or enslavement, to engage in other violent crimes, or condones its followers engaging in such practices.”
Islam is a social/political cult called a religion. It has more in common with the concept of a trans woman than it does with a religion.
“The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.” — John Quincy Adams
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Unfortunately for us the scourge known as islam is growing like the cancer it is. This hatefest masquerading as a religion will be the death of us and our progeny. Anybody who says otherwise is only fooling themselves. And yes, the small i is appropriate as this is not a religion but a death cult. How any self-respecting woman can tolerate it is beyond me.
We must “nip it in the bud”. Sad to say but, if we don’t do so now we hasten our children’s demise. The solution required makes our society squeamish so we skirt around the truth. If we don’t diminish islam at the very least they will completely obliterate us. They will kill us, burn us and piss on the ashes and burn them again. They will do so with great relish and joy – hell, they do so now.
I wish it were not true but, deep in your souls you all know it is. I do not know if any of our leaders have the stones for this. I am not sure ANYBODY has the stones for it. If we don’t do it nobody else will. Europe is feckless and weak and Russia would welcome our demise. China would side with Russia in enjoying our destruction. We are the only ones capable and semi-willing to save ourselves.